Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White; Relative placement; In re Gonzales/Martinez; In re Olive/Metts; Guardianship; In re Simpson

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests despite their bond with respondent-mother and their relative placement. DHHS petitioned for removal after respondent was jailed, tested positive for meth and amphetamines while the children were in her care, and failed to meet one child’s medical needs. The trial court later terminated her parental rights. On appeal, the court noted respondent did not challenge the statutory grounds. As to best interests, it held that the trial court properly considered the children’s bond with her, but also her failure to participate in parenting classes, visitation services, domestic-violence counseling, drug screens, and other services. The trial court found she made “no progress” with mental health, substance abuse, or parenting skills, and that she had not supported the children “financially, emotionally, and mentally.” The court rejected her relative-placement argument because the trial court expressly considered placement with the twins’ paternal grandfather and found it did not change the need for “permanence and stability.” It also rejected her guardianship argument because guardianship was considered and ruled out, no one petitioned for it, and there was no indication the grandparents would have agreed to it. The court held that, taking the record as a whole, a preponderance of the evidence supported termination. Affirmed.