Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Relative placement; Fictive kin; MCL 712A.13a(1)(j); In re CJM; Guardianship; MCL 712A.19a(9); In re Rippy

The court held that the trial court’s best-interest determination had to be vacated because it failed to treat the children’s placement with fictive kin as relative placement weighing against termination. Respondent-mother’s rights to DP2 and DP3 were terminated after nearly two years of services, continued meth use, missed drug screens, unresolved mental-health and housing barriers, and inconsistent parenting-time attendance. She did not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, but argued the trial court erred in its best-interest analysis. On appeal, the court held that respondent abandoned any challenge to statutory grounds and rejected most of her best-interest arguments. It found no reversible error in the trial court’s analysis of the children’s trauma or its rejection of the maternal grandmother as guardian. It also held that even if the trial court erred by finding respondent’s bond with DP3 unstable, that “‘factual error does not . . . render the court’s entire best-interests decision clearly erroneous.’” But the court held remand was required because the trial court stated DP2 and DP3 were “not in relative placement,” even though the record indicated they were placed with fictive kin, which qualifies as relative placement under the current statutory definition. The trial court was required to “‘expressly consider [such placement] as weighing against termination,’” and failure to do so rendered the record inadequate for best-interest review. Vacated and remanded with jurisdiction retained.