e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86678
Opinion Date : 10/19/2026
e-Journal Date : 10/30/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Story
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Swartzle, Ackerman, and Trebilcock
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Child’s best interests; Guardianship as an alternative to termination; In re Lombard; Relative placement; Parent-child bond; Substance abuse; Permanency, stability & finality; Adoption

Summary

The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that termination and adoption, rather than a guardianship, were in the child’s best interests. Respondent-mother did not challenge the DHHS’s reunification efforts or the statutory grounds for termination. Her sole appellate argument was that the trial court should have established a guardianship. The case arose after she left the child with a cousin without making arrangements for his care. During the proceedings she continued to struggle with unstable housing and employment, tested positive for amphetamine and meth, was repeatedly incarcerated, and made little progress toward reunification. On appeal, the court emphasized that while guardianship is an available alternative, “‘[a] trial court is not required to establish a guardianship in lieu of termination if it is not in the child’s best interests to do so.’” Reviewing the record, it concluded that “a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights and subsequent adoption, not a guardianship, was in BRS’s best interests.” In particular, she “made little-to-no progress toward reunifying with BRS.” Although she had recently entered residential programming and drug treatment court, “this was a recent development and an aspect of her probation,” and she “had not been enrolled long enough to show benefit.” The child also had “no real bond” with respondent while having a strong bond with his foster parents. The trial court expressly considered guardianship but rejected it “most notably” because of “the child’s need for safety, permanence, and stability.” The court further noted that “[a] guardianship is not necessarily permanent and may not adequately meet a child’s needs for safety, permanence, and stability” where a parent has been unable to provide a safe home. The foster parents were willing to adopt, while the record did not show they would agree to a guardianship. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion