-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re A. HALEY-WHICKUM, Minor. August 16, 2018

No. 341865

Kent Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 15-053932-NA

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and GLEICHER and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights 

to the minor child, AHW, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions at adjudication continue to 

exist) and (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody).1 We affirm.

The Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHS) removed AHW from 

respondent-mother’s2 care in December 2015 because she was hospitalized and unable to care 

for him. At the time of the adjudication, respondent-father was incarcerated for violating the 

terms of his parole. Respondent-father completed homework assignments and participated in 

substance-abuse and parenting classes while he was in prison. He was released in April 2017. 

After respondent-father’s release, his participation in services was sporadic and he was rearrested 

for parole violations several times. The trial court ultimately determined that respondent-father 

failed to show a benefit from services and terminated his parental rights. This appeal followed.

Respondent-father’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court clearly erred in 

determining that termination was in AHW’s best interests. We disagree.

“[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be 

proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 

 1 The statutory ground for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was substantively 

amended by 2018 PA 58, effective June 12, 2018. The order terminating respondent-father’s 

parental rights was entered pursuant to the former version of MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), as amended 

by 2012 PA 386.

2 Respondent-mother’s parental rights to AHW were also terminated, but she has not appealed 

the termination order.
-2-

(2013). This Court reviews the trial court’s determination regarding the child’s best interests for 

clear error. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). “A finding 

of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a 

mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe 

the witnesses.” In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 296-297; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). This Court is 

“obliged to defer to a trial court’s factual findings at termination proceedings if those findings do 

not constitute clear error.” In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 90; 763 NW2d 587 (2009) (opinion by 

CORRIGAN, J.). 

“Once a statutory ground for termination has been proven, the trial court must find that 

termination is in the child’s best interests before it can terminate parental rights.” In re 

Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 40. When the trial court considers a child’s best interests, 

the focus must be on the child and not the parent. In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 87. “The trial 

court should weigh all the evidence available to determine the child’s best interests.” In re 

White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). “In deciding whether termination is in the 

child’s best interests, the 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 foster 

home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations 

omitted). A trial court can also consider the length of time the child was in foster care or relative 

placement, as well as whether it is likely that “the child could be returned to [the respondent’s] 

home within the foreseeable future, if at all.” See In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248-249; 824 

NW2d 569 (2012).

In this case, the trial court considered several factors in determining whether termination 

of respondent-father’s parental rights was in AHW’s best interests. The trial court considered 

respondent-father’s history and unfavorable psychological evaluation. In addition, the trial court 

recognized that AHW was two years old and had been in foster care for almost his entire life. 

The trial court did not believe that respondent-father was bonded with AHW because their 

interactions had been limited on account of respondent-father’s incarceration and frequent 

cancellations of scheduled parenting time visits when he was not incarcerated. The trial court 

also examined respondent-father’s compliance with the case service plan and opined that 

respondent-father did not show a benefit from services. The trial court acknowledged that 

AHW’s current home was not preadoptive; however, his respite family and respondent-father’s 

sister had previously expressed interest in adopting AHW. Finally, the trial court considered 

AHW’s need for permanence. The trial court explained that respondent-father would be living in 

transitional housing until February 2018, after which he would still need to find housing and 

establish a bond with AHW. It would be at least 9 to 12 months before the caseworker felt

comfortable reunifying AHW with respondent-father. The trial court concluded that requiring 

AHW to wait for another year was unreasonable given the fact that the child already spent two 

years in foster care.

Based on the foregoing, the trial court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous because 

respondent-father failed to make significant progress in his case service plan in the two years that 

this case was open. At the time of the termination hearing, he had failed to establish sobriety, he 

did not have appropriate housing, he had not established a bond with AHW, his participation in 

services was sporadic, and he continued to struggle with legal problems because he was unable

to comply with his parole requirements. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in determining 
-3-

that termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in AHW’s best interests. See In re 

Moss, 301 Mich App at 90. 

Affirmed.

/s/ William B. Murphy

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Anica Letica