Stepparent adoption & parental rights termination proceedings; In re NRC; MCL 710.51(6)(b); Distinguishing In re Kaiser; Factual findings; Personal protection order (PPO)

In these consolidated appeals arising from stepparent adoption/parental rights termination proceedings, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that MCL 710.51(6)(b) was established. Respondent-father contended that “he lacked the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children” and that the trial court failed to make a finding as to his ability to communicate with them. The court disagreed, concluding the record showed that, at the least, he “had the ability to contact and communicate with the children but regularly and substantially failed to do so. [He] acknowledged that he had the ability to communicate with the children by coordinating with counsel. Despite the fact that he could not afford counsel during the two-year period, petitioner-mother maintained the same counsel until the adoption and termination proceedings, and [the] father did not reach out to [her] attorney to request any contact or communication with the children. [He] did not even know whether the children had separate phone numbers or e-mail addresses that he could use to reach them. And while the PPO originally prevented him from personally attending” their school until 9/22, “he was always free to attend virtual parent-teacher conferences.” The court further noted that he did not contact or communicate with them after the PPO expired in 9/23. It found the case he relied on, Kaiser, distinguishable. Based on the evidence, it could not “disturb the trial court’s factual finding that [the] father had the ability to contact or communicate with the children, but regularly and substantially failed to do so during the two-year period.” As to his challenge to the trial court’s factual findings, the record did “contain a written finding that [he] had the ability to communicate with his children.” In addition, it found that “any error arising out of the lack of specific findings on the issue is harmless because the record clearly and convincingly establishes that [he] had the ability to communicate with” them. Affirmed.