Child’s best interests; Effect of relative placement; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU)

Concluding that the trial court misapplied the factor of the child’s relative placement in determining whether termination was in the child’s best interests, the court vacated the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights and remanded. “When discussing the child’s best interests, the trial court primarily spoke about the child’s close bond with his relative placement and the other children in the home and referenced respondent’s lack of ability and interest in parenting, as demonstrated by her lack of contact with the child beyond two NICU visits.” The court found no error in its factual findings as “to the child’s placement with family and how well he was doing in that placement.” But in its review of the best-interest hearing, it “identified a legal error that was not identified by respondent but which nevertheless amounted to an abuse of discretion. The trial court stated that, ‘the fact that the child is in placement with a relative does not weigh against termination of parental rights’ and ‘[r]elative placement, again, for purposes of best interest, does not weigh against termination as this relative is not interested in guardianship but is only interested in adoption of this child[.]’” The court noted that the “law is clear, that ‘placement with relatives weighs against termination under MCL 712A.19a(6)(a).’” The court could not “separate the decision to terminate from this error of law.”