Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Distinguishing In re Mason; In re Pops; Child’s best interests; In re Sanborn; Relative placement; In re Gonzalez/Martinez

Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (c)(i) was established by clear and convincing evidence, or in concluding that terminating respondent-father’s parental rights was in the child’s (MDF) best interests, the court affirmed the termination order. Respondent was convicted of a Michigan drug felony and facing federal drug charges at the time of the proceedings. Unlike the respondent in Mason, he “was provided with a service plan and the goal was reunification until [6/25] when the supplemental petition was authorized.” And the court noted that he “participated in services and made progress with some elements of his treatment plan when he had the opportunity.” However, he “was noncompliant with critical elements of his treatment plan, including procurement and maintenance of a legal source of income and suitable housing.” He was arrested in 12/24 on the federal “charges, violating his parole conditions on his Michigan” conviction. While he “made some progress in his treatment plan, the conditions that led to the adjudication—respondent’s incarceration and inability to provide for MDF—continued to exist. As” in Pops, his “criminal activity was a concern at the beginning of the case and at termination.” As to MDF’s best interests, the existence of a bond and respondent’s parenting time attendance history weighed against termination. But his “repeated incarcerations for the same or similar conduct” weighed in favor of it because they negatively affected “his ability to provide the stability, permanence, and finality MDF deserves in a reasonable time. Further, there appear to be many advantages to MDF’s maternal aunt’s home in comparison to respondent’s current environment.” MDF reported that he enjoyed living with her and wanted to stay with her. There was testimony he was “thriving” there, and she was willing and able to adopt him. While a relative placement generally weighs against termination, several best-interests factors strongly supported “the trial court’s conclusion that [it] was in MDF’s best interests.”