-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED In re A. R. DUVENDECK, Minor. June 15, 2017

No. 335894 Ingham Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 15-000722-NA

Before: O’B RIEN , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and B OONSTRA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent appeals as of right the circuit court’s order termi nating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) (conditions of adjudication continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) (reasonab le likelihood of harm). 1 We affirm.

The child at issue in this cas e was removed from respondent’s care in June 2015 based on allegations of neglect, substanc e abuse, and unstable housing. Over the next year-and-a-half, respondent was provided a variety of services that were intende d to improve parenting skills, substance abuse issues, social s upport, and housing and employm ent situations. However, respondent failed to comply with or benefit from those services . There was testimony presented that respondent did not find and maintain suitable housing or e mployment, continued to use marijuana, missed several scheduled drug tests, failed to atten d substance abuse treatment sessions, did not complete paren ting coaching sessions, and str uggled to adequately parent the child during parenting-time sessions. A supplemental petition seeking the termination of her parental rights was thus filed in May 2016, and respondent’s pa rental rights were terminated in November 2016. This appeal followed.

On appeal, respondent first argues that the prosecutor failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was proper under MCL 712A .19b(3)(c)( i ), (g) and (j) because she has consistently made progress throughout this case . Specifically, she claims that she completed parenting classes and obtained suitable housing a nd employment. Next, respondent argues that the circu it court erred in finding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest because she and the child shared a bo nd. We disagree in both respects.

1 The trial court also terminated the father’s parental rights u nder MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)( ii ) (desertion).-2- A trial court may terminate a parent’s parental rights if it f inds that at least one of the statutory grounds set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been establi shed by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner bears the burden of proving at least one statutory ground. MCR 3.977(A)(3); In re Trejo Minors , 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review a trial court’s finding that a statutory ground has been established fo r clear error. In re Rood , 483 Mich 73, 91; 763 NW2d 587 (2009). “A finding of fact is clearly err oneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committe d, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 80; 836 NW2d 182 (2013) (citation and interna l quotation marks omitted)

.
The circuit court terminated r espondent’s parental rights purs uant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g) and (j), which provide as follows:

(3) The court may terminate a parent’s parental rights to a ch ild if the court finds, by clear and convinc ing evidence, 1 or more of the following:

* * *

(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 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.

* * *

(g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide pro per 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 tim e considering the child’s age.

* * *

(j) There is a reasonable lik elihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent.

In this case, we conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the circuit court’s decision to term inate respondent’s parental rig hts under all three statutory sections, specifically MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ). The caseworker testifie d that respondent lived at approximately ten different loc ations throughout the pendency o f this case and that those locations were not suitable for a child. In fact, respondent c ontinued to reside in some of those locations despite the existen ce of ongoing domestic violence is sues with new boyfriends. There was also testimony presented that respondent did not have housi ng at the time of the final trial date. Respondent also lied about past employment at trial and was unable to verify any-3- employment. The record also re flects that respondent demonstra ted a lack of commitment to treatment for her substance abus e and behavioral health issues by continuing to use marijuana, failing to attend substance abuse treatment sessions, and atten ding only half of her mental health therapy sessions. Moreover, respondent did not demonstrate imp rovement in her parenting skills. She completed only one parenting class in November 201 5 and failed to attend 11 of the 12 coaching sessions with a paren ting coach during the followin g spring. Respondent also failed to show up to several of her scheduled visits with the child. When respondent was present at the visits, she frequently arrived u p to 75 minutes late, left earl y, fell asleep during visits, used profane language, and ignored the child by using her cell phone . Respondent also acted aggressively in the child’s prese nce, which, in one instance, n ecessitated remova l of the child from the visitation room and a police officer to escort respond ent out of the building. Considering all of these factors, the trial court properly foun d that the conditions that led to the adjudication persisted for more than 182 days with no reasonabl e likelihood of being rectified within a reasonable time consider ing the child’s age under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ). See In re LE Minor , 278 Mich App 1, 27; 747 NW2d 883 (2008) (finding that termina tion under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) is proper when, despite the opportunity to take advantages of services, the parent lacked employment, neve r obtained adequate housing, miss ed random drug screens, and is at a risk of relapse). 2

“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 term inate parental rights.” In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App 35, 40; 826 NW2d 144 (2012), citing MCL 712A.19b (5); MCR 3.977(E)(4). “[W]hether termina tion of parental rights is in t he best interests of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss , 301 Mich App at 90. Trial courts should consider all available ev idence in making this determina tion. In re Trejo , 462 Mich at 356. Relevant factors to be cons idered include the bond betwee n the child and the parent, the parent’s ability to parent, the child’s need for permanency and stability, the advantages of the foster home over the parent’s home, and any other relevant fact ors. In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App at 41-42. We review the tri al court’s determination that t ermination is in the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 40.

In this case, we conclude that the circuit court did not err w hen it found that termination of respondent’s parental rights w as in the child’s best interes ts. The trial court correctly pointed out that respondent’s relationshi p with the child “has been wea kening” because the child, who was nearly three years old at the close of trial, was six month s old when removed from her mother. Moreover, the foster care worker testified about the a dvantages of the foster home, agreeing that the child had a healthy bond with the foster pare nts and that the foster parents would be able to meet the child’s needs and provide her permane nce through adoption. The

2 If we find that the trial court did not clearly err by conclud ing that one statutory ground for termination existed, we need not address the additional grounds for termination. In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 461; 781 NW 2d 105 (2009). In a ny event,, we woul d note that termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) was appropriate for reasons similar to those we discussed with respect to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ).-4- foster care worker’s description of the child’s response to res pondent’s loss of temper during a visit in July 2016, when the screaming and crying child ran to her foster parent screaming for “mommy[,]” demonstrates the bond between the child and the fost er parents. It also supports the trial court’s finding that the child’s relationship with respon dent has weakened over time. Additionally, as discu ssed above, respondent remained unable to secure consistent housing or employment in order to adequately provide for the child. Thus, the circuit court’s best-interests determination was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Mark T. Boonstra