-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED

In re SOBOLESKI/WRIGHT, Minors. April 18, 2017

No. 333808

St. Clair Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 15-000287-NA

Before: F ORT H OOD , P.J., and J ANSEN and H OEKSTRA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent appeals as of right an order terminating her parent al rights to the minor children, HMS and KW, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( ii ) (other conditions exist), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care or custody). We affirm.

Respondent contends that the trial court clearly erred by find ing that statutory grounds existed to terminate her parental rights to HMS and KW. Specif ically, respondent argues that she took “several significant steps forward that showed that sh e could address [the] issues with more time and assistance,” and th e trial court should have prov ided her more time to prove she was progressing. We disagree.

We review the trial court’s factual findings and ultimate dete rminations on the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights for clear error. MC R 3.977(K); In re Mason , 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). “A finding is clearly erro neous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Cour t is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been made.” In re Hudson , 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011). “[R]egard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge th e credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” In re Ellis , 294 Mich App 30, 33; 817 NW2d 111 (2011).

“If a trial court finds that a statutory basis for terminating parental rights exists by clear and convincing evidence, it is re quired to terminate parental r ights if ‘it finds from a preponderance of evidence on the whole record that termination is in the children’s best

interests.’ ” In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad Minors , 305 Mich App 623, 637; 853 NW2d 459 (2014) (citation omitted). Only one statutory ground must be e stablished to terminate parental rights. In re Frey , 297 Mich App 242, 244; 824 NW2d 569 (2012).-2- Respondent’s parental rights were terminated under MCL 712A.19 b(3)(c)( i ), (c)( ii ), and (g). MCL 712A.19b(3)(c) provides that the court may terminate the respondent’s parental rights if the court finds, by clear and c onvincing evidence, the follo wing:

The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convinc ing evidence, finds either o f 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.

( ii ) Other conditions exist that cause the child to come within th e court’s jurisdiction, the parent has re ceived recommendations to rectif y those conditions,

the conditions have not been rectif ied by the parent after the parent has received notice and a hearing and has be en given a reasonable opportunit y to rectify the conditions, and there is no reas onable likelihood that the cond itions will be

rectified within a reasonable ti me considering the child’s age.

“Generally, when a child is rem oved from the parents’ custody, the petitioner is r equired to make reasonable efforts to rectify t he conditions that caused the ch ild’s removal by adopting a service plan.” In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 462; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). “When the [Depar tment of Health and Human Services (the DHHS)] has a responsibility to e xpend reasonable efforts to provide services to secure reunification, there exists a commen surate responsibility on the part of respondents to participate in the services that are offered.” Frey , 297 Mich App at 248. Respondent’s parental rights were also terminated under MCL 712 A.19b(3)(g), which provides that the court may terminate the respondent’s parental rights i f the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that “[t]he parent, without regard to inte nt, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation th at the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering th e child’s age.” This Court has held that “[a] parent’s failure t o participate in and benefit f rom a service plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provi de a child proper care and cust ody.” In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

We conclude that the trial court’s termination decision under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) and (g) was supported by clear and c onvincing evidence. In the ini tial petition regarding HMS, filed in August 2015, petitioner requeste d that the court take jurisd iction of HMS and that the child be removed from respondent’s care du e to respondent’s prolonged su bstance abuse issues. The petition noted that due to respond ent’s inability to maintain a safe, stable, and drug-free environment, HMS was placed in a guardianship with her paternal grandparents on two occasions. Additionally, respondent did not have safe, secure, and independent housing for herself or for HMS, and respondent had no verifiable source of legal income or employment. By the time KW was born in November 2015, respondent had failed to take advantage of any services offered by DHHS, and she was still struggling with sub stance abuse. Accordingly, KW was brought under the trial court’s jurisdiction in December 20 15.-3- The evidence clearly establishe d that respondent failed to add ress her significant substance abuse issue. Respondent tested positive for oxycodon e, cocaine, and benzodiazepines while pregnant with KW. Additionally, when KW was born, she te sted positive for drugs. Jessica Leenknegt, a family specialist through the Professional Counseling Center, testified during the termination hearing that, on occasion, she believed respondent to be under the influence based upon observations that respondent would use the bathroom frequently and for prolonged periods during visits. Additionally, respondent had difficulty focusing on one subject at a time during conversations, was incoherent, would talk “in circles,” and would frequently change her stories.

Respondent had been receiving methadone through Sacred Heart R ehabilitation during the months leading up to the termination hearing. However, she continued to test positive for methadone at levels that were well beyond therapeutic. Althoug h respondent was ordered to attend AA or NA meetings, respon dent failed to do so, explainin g that she was scared to attend those meetings alone. Respondent also failed to provide docume ntation to her caseworker showing that she was attending outpatient group therapy through Sacred Heart Rehabilitation. Ultimately, respondent stopped seeking treatment for her substa nce abuse at Sacred Heart Rehabilitation all together. A dditionally, two police reports indicate that respondent’s substance abuse problem was ongoing at the time of termination in June 20 16. An April 13, 2016 police report indicated that respondent was transported to a local hos pital because of a possible overdose. Another police report indicated that respondent was the “victim of a crime where the assailant indicated she had asked him to drop her around lookin g for heroin[.]” Finally, a police report from May 28, 2016, indicated that respondent was accused of stealing prescription

medication.

Respondent also struggled to f ind stable housing. Throughout the proceedings, respondent would bounce between a friend’s house and her mother ’s house. Although respondent claimed to have signed a lease for an apartment in F ebruary 2016, respondent never provided her caseworker a copy of that lease, and she cancelled both prescheduled home visits. Respondent’s caseworker expressed concern over respondent’s abi lity to maintain the apartment, given that respondent never obtained, or at the very least prov ided proof of, legal employment. Respondent testified that her brother paid her rent. However, the record indicated that respondent had an unstable relationship with her brother. Inde ed, respondent was involved in a physical altercation with her brother a month before the termin ation hearing, and the police were

called to the scene of the altercation.

Finally, due to respondent’s s ubstance abuse, KW was born with Methadone and Oxycodone in her system, and she went through severe withdrawal s which required an extended hospitalization after her birt h. KW suffers from high blood pr essure, for which she takes medication and sees a cardiologist twice a month, and has sever ely crossed eyes and astigmatism, for which KW wears an eye patch and will likely re quire eyeglasses and a possible surgery in the future. During the six months, or 182 days, tha t the trial court had jurisdiction over KW, respondent failed to tak e full advantage of the servic es that were available to her and failed to get control over her substance abuse issue. Responde nt’s failure to abide by the service plan agreement does not suggest t hat she is adequately equipped to provide proper care for an infant with special needs.-4- Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that petitioner had presented clear and convincing ev idence to support the terminat ion of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) and (3)(g). 1 Over the course of nearly 10 months that the trial court had jurisdiction over HMS, and the six months it ha d jurisdiction over KW, respondent failed to obtain inde pendent housing for herself and her children and failed to find legal employment. Respondent also failed to take advantage of the services provided to her through DHHS, and she failed to acknowledge and address her ong oing substance abuse issues. Accordingly, clear and convincing evidence was presented showin g respondent would be unable to rectify the issues that led to the adjudication within a rea sonable time considering the ages of the children. Further, clear and convincing evidence was prese nted that respondent failed to provide proper care and custody for HMS and KW, and will not be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the children’s ages. Thus, respond ent’s parental rights were properly terminated by the trial court. 2

Affirmed.

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood

/s/ Kathleen Jansen

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra

1 Because petitioner was only required to establish one statutor y ground in order for the court to terminate respondent’s parental rights, and because we conclude that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) and (g), we need not address whether termination was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( ii ). See Frey , 297 Mich App at

244.

2 We note that respondent does not challenge the trial court’s b est-interest determination on appeal. However, even if respondent had challenged the best-in terest determination of the trial court, we would conclude that the trial court did not err by fi nding that termination was in the

best interests of the children.