Children’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Olive/Metts; Effect of incomplete transcripts; People v Craig; Prejudice; Waiver of claim as to a no-contest plea to statutory grounds for termination

The court held that respondent-father failed to show that he was prejudiced by incomplete transcripts of his termination proceeding, and that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating both respondents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interests. As an initial matter, the court concluded that respondent-mother waived her claim that her no-contest plea to statutory grounds for termination was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Among other things, her attorney indicated at the plea proceeding that he was satisfied with her waiver of rights. As to the father’s incomplete transcripts argument, his substantive claim on appeal was that terminating his parental rights was not in his child’s (ELC) best interests, and the record was sufficient to allow the court to review that claim. Further, both he and his trial counsel were present at the “hearing where the overwhelming majority of the transcription problems occurred” but he did not “identify anything that occurred at that hearing that is relevant to his substantive argument on appeal[.]” As to the children’s best interests, the “mother repeatedly tested positive for cocaine during these proceedings. She failed to provide proof of steady employment or housing. Moreover, ELC told a caseworker that mother gave him marijuana, although [she] claimed that ELC took it from her car.” The court also held that the “children’s need for permanency, stability, and finality weighed in favor of termination. [They] had varying degrees of special needs that either developed or worsened during these proceedings,” which continued for over five years without the mother making “any significant progress.” As to the father, while he “believed he had a bond with ELC, he knew very little about ELC or his challenges, he had little involvement in ELC’s life, he did not visit ELC for long periods of time during these proceedings, and ELC” told the caseworker “that he did not want to continue visits with father.” Further, the evidence showed that the father failed to “comply with his case service plan, as he admitted as much.” The court affirmed the termination orders.