Termination under § 19b(3)(j); In re VanDalen; In re Hudson; In re White; In re HRC; In re Ellis; Children’s best interests; In re Moss Minors; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re AH; Jurisdiction over the children; Peterman v. Department of Natural Res.; In re BZ; In re Sanders; MCL 712A.2(b); In re Ferranti; M Civ JI 97.37; MCL 712A.2(b)(1); In re Nash; Parent-agency treatment plan (PATP)

Holding that as to respondent-mother, § (j) existed and termination was in the children’s best interests, and respondent-father did not demonstrate clear error as to the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the children, the court affirmed. The evidence indicated that the mother failed to comply with nearly every aspect of the PATP. The only thing that she did comply with was parenting time. And even then, the evidence indicated that the caseworkers suspected her of being under the influence of drugs during visits with the children and that she would fall asleep during those visits. She “was homeless for the majority of the proceedings, and her housing was still not verified as of the termination hearing. She was also unemployed for the entirety of the case.” The mother “was supposed to participate in weekly drug screens, but she refused to attend any of her screens, which” the DHHS considered positive screens. “She also did not engage in any counseling or participate in her two scheduled psychological evaluations.” She only partially participated in the trial “court proceedings during this case, and she walked out of multiple family-team meetings with the foster-care caseworkers.” The evidence of her “lack of participation and benefit from the PATP is indicative of her inability to parent her children adequately, and of the risk of physical and emotional harm that she posed to the children if they were returned to her care.” Thus, the court was not “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,” in the trial court’s findings and decision that § (j) was proven by clear and convincing evidence.