Child’s best interests; Failure to consider child’s relative placement; In re Mota; In re Olive/Metts; In re Boshell/Shelton; Motion to adjourn; MCR 3.923(G); In re Utrera

While the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-father’s motion to adjourn, it remanded for further proceedings because in making its best-interests determination, the trial court failed to consider the child’s relative placement as weighing against termination. Respondent asserted “there was good cause to adjourn based on his criminal attorney’s belief that his criminal convictions may be overturned on appeal.” However, this “argument was speculative at best” and did not constitute good cause under MCR 3.923(G)(1). The court also noted the trial court properly took the child’s best interests into consideration, and reasonably concluded they “would not be served by an indefinite adjournment given the child’s interest in finality.” Turning to respondent’s claim that the trial court erred in finding that termination was in the child’s best interests, the court disagreed that the trial court lacked “sufficient evidence to adequately consider the child’s bond with” him. It also rejected his assertion that “the trial court improperly relied on the caseworker’s testimony because she was not qualified as an expert witness. [She] testified as a lay witness, not as an expert, because she discussed observations she made and opinions she developed while working directly with the child.” However, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court did not “give proper consideration to the child’s placement with her mother.” At best, it gave “a generalized statement regarding the child’s placement, stating that ‘[t]he child is with her biological mother and is being cared for there.’ But there was no specific finding as to how this placement factored into [its] best-interest determination nor did [it] expressly consider it as weighing against” terminating respondent’s parental rights. Thus, the factual record “was inadequate to support a best-interest determination because it failed to account for the child’s placement with her mother.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court retained jurisdiction.