Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White; Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP); Guardianship; Another planned permanent living arrangement (APPLA); MCL 712A.19c; In re TK

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding termination was in the children’s best interests despite respondent-father’s arguments about guardianship, APPLA, and needing more time for services. DHHS petitioned to remove the children based on abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and the father’s abandonment and failure to support or protect them. The trial court assumed jurisdiction, approved a PATP for the father, and later terminated his rights. On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s best interests finding. The court held that the best-interest finding was supported by the father’s absence from the case, complete failure to participate in services, failure to attend 68 visitation opportunities, and the children’s statements that they did not “want anything to do with [their] dad” and “didn’t care” whether his rights were terminated. It rejected his argument that guardianship or APPLA was preferable because those permanency plan goals did not foreclose termination. The trial court found termination gave the children the “best chance at finality, permanency, and success in pursuing their goals.” The court also rejected his request for more time because DHHS repeatedly tried to locate and contact him, yet he remained absent and made “no progress on his PATP.” Finally, the court concluded the record supported risk of harm if the children were returned because he had failed to protect them, lacked suitable housing, and had prior protective-services involvement. Affirmed.