Termination of parental rights; Best interests; Parent-child bond; Mental health; Domestic violence; Permanency; Relative placement; Fictive kin; MCL 712A.13a(1)(j)(ii)

The court held that termination was in the best interests of three of the children (K1, K2, and K3), but that remand was required as to the fourth (K4) because the trial court did not properly consider whether K4’s placement with fictive kin qualified as relative placement. The trial court terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights under multiple grounds after years of services, continued emotional instability, domestic violence concerns, and instability following a brief reunification. On appeal, the court found no error as to the best interests of K1, K2, and K3. The record showed respondent failed to benefit from mental-health services, continued to minimize domestic violence, lacked emotional regulation, threatened the caseworker in open court, and did not achieve the stability needed to parent children with special needs. The court also found the parent-child bond weighed in favor of termination because the older children’s desire to protect respondent showed an unhealthy bond, and the younger children had only a minimal bond. As to K4, however, the court found additional analysis was required because the amended definition of “relative” includes certain fictive kin with “a strong positive emotional tie or role” in the child’s or parent’s life. Because the trial court and parties did not determine whether K4’s caregiver qualified under MCL 712A.13a(1)(j)(ii), the court vacated the best-interest determination as to K4. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.