-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED In re H. M. CAYRUTH, Minor. March 16, 2017

Nos. 333573; 333574 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 13-511850-NA

Before: M ARKEY , P.J., and W ILDER and S WARTZLE , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent-father Stroud and respondent-mother Cayruth each ap peal as of right the circuit court’s order terminati ng their parental rights to the minor child. The court terminated Stroud’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g), and (j), and terminated Cayruth’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g), (i), and (j). We affirm.

I. DOCKET NO. 333573

Respondent Stroud challenges the trial court’s decision regard ing the statutory grounds for termination and its determi nation regarding the child’s bes t interests. We not e that respondent Stroud has failed to offer a cogent legal argument addressing the trial court’s factual findings or its legal determinations based on those findings. He contends only that because he had been participating in reunification se rvices, the trial court should have given him additional time in which to complete those services, even though the child had bee n in foster care for more than a year. Although the issue could be deemed abandoned for failure to present a meaningful argument, Berger v Berger , 277 Mich App 700, 712; 747 NW2d 336 (2008), we will address i t in the interest of justice. The trial court’s determinations r egarding a statutory ground for termination and the child’s best interests are both reviewed fo r clear error. In re Laster , 303 Mich App 485, 491; 845 NW2d 540 (2013); In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014); MCR 3.977(K).

The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(c )( i ) had been established by clear and convincing evidence. This provision states that the trial court may terminate a respondent’s parent al rights if:

(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial-2- dispositional order, and the c ourt, by clear and convincing evi dence, finds either of the following:

( i ) The conditions that led to the a djudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. [MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ).]

Stroud was a respondent in this case. The conditions that led to the adjudication were his lack of suitable housing for himself and the child, and his lac k of a legal source of income with which to support himself and th e child. More than 182 days aft er the initial dispositional order, the trial court found that Stroud had not acquired suitable hou sing. The evidence showed that he and Cayruth were illegally “squatting” in a house owned by the city of Detroit. While Stroud testified that the home was owne d by an individual named “Brown ,” he admitted that he did not have a lease agreement for the property. Further, the foster-c are worker testified that the house was in deplorable condition. The trial court also found that S troud did not have a legal source of income. Stroud claimed to be disabled, but he did not receive disability benefits. He worked occasionally doing odd jobs for cash, but he never provided any form of documentation showing when he worked, who he worked for, or how much he earned. Give n that Stroud had a year in which to obtain suitable housing and a legal and sufficient sou rce of income and had not made any progress, the trial court did not clearly err in finding th at the conditions that led to the adjudication had not been rectifie d and were not reasonably lik ely to be rectified within a reasonable time considering the age of the child (15 months).

The trial court also did not clearly err in finding that § 19b (3)(g) had been established by clear and convincing evidence. This provision states that the trial court may terminate a respondent’s parental rights if the court finds clear and convi ncing evidence that “[t]he parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custo dy for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the p arent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.” MCL 712A.19b(3)( g).

The record confirms that Stroud f ailed to provide proper care and custody for the child. He was incarcerated and left the child with Cayruth, who was an unfit caretaker; she had another child in foster care for which a termination hearing was pendin g and she did not have suitable housing for herself and the child. The evidence showed that St roud was provided with services to enable him to be able to provide proper care and custody. A fter a year, he had not completed parenting classes and his behavior at family visits showed that he could not properly take care of the child, and he was resistant to change. He had not complete d counseling and became angry when redirected at family visits. He had not obtained suitable housing or a legal source of income, and had not demonstrated his sobriety by providing rand om drug screens as ordered. Given Stroud’s shortcomings and lack of progress after a year, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that he did not provide proper care and custody for the child and was not likely to be able to do so within a reasonable time.

The trial court also did not clearly err in finding that § 19b (3)(j) had been established by clear and convincing evidence. This provision states that the trial court may terminate a respondent’s parental rights if the court finds clear and convi ncing evidence that “[t]here is a-3- reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is return ed to the home of the parent.” MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).

Stroud was an angry, abusive person. From the outset of this case, the trial court was rightfully concerned about respondent’s domestic violence towar ds Cayruth. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) twice referred Stroud to domes tic violence counseling, but he never completed the program. Stroud was involved in two dom estic violence incidents with Cayruth during the pendency of th is case, one of which sent Cay ruth to the hospital with a fractured nose.

Indeed, Stroud’s demeaning behavior towards women did not end with Cayruth. Stroud responded angrily when workers attempted to direct him during h is supervised parenting time. During one parenting time session, Stroud told a worker that ev ery woman needs to be roughed
up.
Stroud’s strong tendency towards domestic violence is enough f or this Court to conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the ch ild was reasonably likely to be harmed if placed in Stroud’s home. Stroud’s failure to address his pa renting deficiencies, obtain a steady income, obtain suitable housing, and submit to drug screening o nly strengthens the trial court’s finding.

Further, in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the statutory grounds for terminating Stroud’s parental rights, we conclude that the tria l court did not clearly err in finding that termination of those rights wa s in the child’s best intere sts.

II. DOCKET NO. 333574

In her appeal, respondent Cayruth does not challenge the statu tory grounds under which the trial court terminated her parental rights. Rather, Cayrut h argues that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child. Because Cayr uth did not raise this issue in a timely manner in the trial court, and did not object to the ser vice plan or argue that the services provided were inadequate, this issue is unpreserved. In re Frey , 297 Mich App 242, 247; 824 NW2d 569 (2012). Therefore, “review is limited to determining whether a plain error occurred that affected substantial rights.” In re Egbert R Smith Trust
, 274 Mich App 283, 285; 731 NW2d 810 (2007).

“In general, petitioner must make reasonable efforts to rectif y conditions, to reunify families, and to avoid termination of parental rights.” In re LE , 278 Mich App 1, 18; 747 NW2d 883 (2008). Specifically, “[r]easonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases” except those cases involving exceptional circumstanc es. MCL 712A.19a(2). While exceptional circumstances arguably existed here because Cayruth ’s parental rights to another child were terminated before the initial dispositional hearing for the instant child, MCL 712A.19a(2)(c), DHHS agreed t o provide services.

DHHS made “reasonable efforts” toward reunification by providi ng referrals for services and attempting to engage Cayruth in those services. The record shows that DHHS provided Cayruth with psychological and ps ychiatric evaluations to asses s her needs, parenting classes, in--4- home counseling, and family visits. Cayruth does not claim tha t these services were inadequate, does not identify any particular additional servic es that shoul d have been provided, and has not shown that she “would have fared better” had she been offered a dditional services. See In re Fried , 266 Mich App 535, 543; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). Therefore, Cayru th has not shown that her substantial rights were aff ected by the alleged failure to provide services.

Cayruth also argues that the t rial court erred in finding that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s bes t interests. We disagree.

“If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests , the court shall order termination of parental rights and order that a dditional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be made.” MCL 712A.19b(5). “[W]hether termination is in the c hild’s best interests must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). In deciding whether ter mination is in the child’s best interests, the trial “court may consider the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a fo ster home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 ( 2012) (internal citation s omitted).

There was evidence that respondent loved the child and they we re bonded, and the trial court found that Cayruth had subs tantially complied with her pa rent-agency agreement. The trial court also found, however, that Cay ruth failed to benefit from parenting classes because she still needed assistance with basic childcare matters. Both parents h ad been referred to counseling to address domestic violence. Neither parent completed counseling , and Stroud committed two more episodes of domestic violence against Cayruth during the p endency of the case— nevertheless, Cayruth continued living with Stroud. Further, t hey did not have a legal right to occupy the home in which they were living. Given such evidence , and the fact that the child had been in foster care for more tha n a year, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of Cayru th’s parental rights was in th e child’s best interests.

Affirmed.

/s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Brock A. Swartzle