-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED

In re TRAYLOR, Minor. August 18, 2015

No. 325875

Kent Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 12-050165-NA

Before: T ALBOT , C.J., and K. F. K ELLY and S ERVITTO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent-father appeals as of right the January 14, 2015, or der terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) (failure to rectify conditions of adjudication), (c)( ii ) (other conditions exist that could have caused the child to c ome within the court’s jurisdiction and they have not been rectified), and (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody). We affirm.

The trial court must find that at least one of the statutory g rounds in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence in order to termi nate parental rights. In re

VanDalen , 293 Mich App 120, 139; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). “If the court fi nds 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 r ights and order that additional efforts

for reunification of the child w ith the parent not be made.” M CL 712A.19b(5).

Respondent argues that termination was not in the best interes ts of the child. We disagree. 1 The trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in a

1 To the extent that respondent m ay also be challenging the stat utory grounds for termination, we

find no clear error in the court’ s decision. The trial court p roperly terminated respondent’s parental rights pursuant to M CL 712A.19b(3)(g), because during a lengthy three-year proceeding, respondent never obtained safe and suitable housing (See In re Laster , 303 Mich App 485, 493-494; 845 NW2d 540 (2013)) and failed to address hi s substance abuse issues, admitting to smoking marijuana throughout the entire proceeding s. Given respondent’s failure to address these issues over the course of the lengthy proceeding, a change in his ability to provide-2- child’s best interest. In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). We review the

trial court’s decision for clear error. In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 459; 286 NW2d 105 (2009). Factors to be considered include “the child’s bond to the paren t, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and t he advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.” In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012)(internal citations omitted).

The record supports that termination was in the child’s best i nterests. The child had been transferred in and out of numerous placements over the three-ye ar proceeding; he deserved permanency and stability. However, respondent had no means whi ch he could provide permanency and stability for the child. For three years, respo ndent failed to demonstrate that he was benefitting from the services provided. Further, given his failure to obtain housing or address his substance abuse issues, respondent showed no indica tion that he would be able to provide permanency and stability for the child in the foreseeab le future. See In re Frey , 297 Mich App 242, 248-249; 824 NW2d 569 (2012). To the extent that respondent was able to parent and shared a bond with the child, the child’s need for p ermanency and stability outweighed respondent’s parenting ability and their bond. Ther efore, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate respondent’s parental rights.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Talbot /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Deborah A. Servitto

for the child is only a “mere possibility.” See In re Williams , 286 Mich App 253, 273; 779 NW2d 286 (2009).