If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-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UNPUBLISHED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 WILSON, Minors. March 10, 2022

No. 358397

Macomb Circuit Court

Juvenile Division

LC Nos. 2018-000367-NA

2018-000368-NA

2020-000063-NA

Before: GADOLA, P.J., and BORRELLO and M. J. KELLY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to her minor 

children, KAW, MLW, and KMW, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), MCL 712A.19b(g), and MCL 

712A.19b(j).1 For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS

Petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a petition seeking to 

remove KAW and MLW from respondent’s care and requesting temporary jurisdiction. Petitioner 

alleged that there were issues with domestic violence in front of the children, alcohol use, cocaine 

and marijuana use, and inappropriate housing. Respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations 

in the petition. Respondent was offered services aimed at reunifying her with the children, 

including random drug screens, domestic-violence classes, parenting classes, a psychological 

evaluation, individual therapy, and supervised parenting time. When KMW was born, the court 

authorized a petition to remove him from respondent’s care, and subsequently entered an order 

taking jurisdiction over him in March 2020.

In January 2021, petitioner filed a supplemental petition seeking termination of 

respondent’s parental rights to all three children. Petitioner alleged that there continued to be 

issues with domestic violence, substance abuse, housing, and income. Additionally, petitioner 

 

1 Prior to his death, the children’s father was a respondent in these proceedings.
-2-

alleged that respondent had failed to comply with the treatment plan and therapy. The court 

rejected the petition, however. Respondent continued services, but, as before, was inconsistent 

with them. She also cancelled visits with the children the day of the visit, and she continued to 

miss drug screens. In June 2021, petitioner filed a second supplemental petition seeking 

termination of respondent’s parental rights, alleging unsuitable housing, unstable income, 

noncompliance with the treatment plan and drug screens, and noncompliance with individual 

therapy. The trial court authorized the petition. Thereafter, respondent stipulated that there were 

statutory grounds to terminate her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), but

she requested a best-interests hearing.

At the best interests hearing, the foster care worker testified that the initial reason for the 

removal petition in 2018 was for domestic violence and unstable housing, and the drug screens 

were ordered because of respondent’s possible marijuana use. The foster care worker testified that 

respondent lived between her mother’s and father’s homes. Respondent completed only 20 of the 

94 total ordered screens. She also did not consistently attend her individual therapy. The 

children’s foster mother testified that she felt a bond “on every level” with the children and would 

love to adopt them, noting they began to call her and their foster father “mom” and “dad” after 

only a month.

Respondent testified that she had tried her best to comply with her treatment plan. She 

explained the reason for her inability to find independent housing was her low credit score and 

lack of assistance. Respondent noted she was trying to get an apartment after saving up some 

money, but explained if the apartment falls through she will most likely live with her mother or 

father. Respondent was still engaging with her individual therapy and was back on her 

antidepressants. She admitted there was inconsistency with her drug screens. She attributed that 

to her difficulty in getting rides to the testing site. She stated that, in the future, it would not be a 

problem because her father had bought her a car, and, if she needed to, she would call an Uber. 

Respondent also noted she had a car at the maternal grandmother’s house, but was only allowed 

to use it for situations involving the children. Yet, she also testified that another reason for missing 

drug screens was because she would get back together with respondent-father and that, while with 

him, she “wanted to be with him and not do what was best” for the children. With regard to her 

substance abuse issue, respondent admitted she had a problem with marijuana in the past, but stated 

that she had quit. She then testified that she had previously quit and then restarted smoking 

marijuana. Finally, respondent asserted she had learned from her domestic violence counseling in 

2019, but acknowledged she was arrested as a result of two separate fights since then. The record 

reflects that she was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against the maternal 

grandmother in June 2019, and in December 2020, she was convicted of a misdemeanor assault 

and battery.

Following the hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that 

termination of respondent’s parental rights to the children was in the children’s best interests. 

Therefore, the court entered an order terminating respondent’s parental rights.
-3-

II. BEST INTERESTS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Respondent argues that the trial court erred by finding that termination of her parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests. We review for clear error a trial court’s determination 

regarding best interests. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

B. ANALYSIS

In determining the best interests of the child, the trial court should consider:

[T]he 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. The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of domestic 

violence, the parent’s compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent’s 

visitation history with the child, the children’s well-being while in care, and the 

possibility of adoption. [In re White, 303 Mich at 713-714 (quotation marks and 

citations omitted).]

Respondent first contends that drug screens should not have been part of her treatment plan 

because the removal was due to domestic violence and a lack of housing. However, the petition 

alleged that one of the children tested positive for THC at birth. Moreover, there were allegations

of drug use. Respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations in the petition. Therefore, drug 

screens were properly part of respondent’s treatment plan. She did not comply with it. Her reasons 

for noncompliance were related to her inability to get transportation. However, at the best-interests 

hearing, she admitted that at times she did not screen because she wanted to be with respondentfather instead of prioritizing the children. She also noted that she had a vehicle at the maternal 

grandmother’s house that she was allowed to use for tasks related to the children. Additionally, 

respondent testified that she could call an Uber to get to her drug screens in the future. In doing 

so, she noted that she uses an Uber to get to and from work. In light of the above, the record 

supports an inference that the reason she did not attend the drug screens was because she did not 

want to, not because she was incapable of doing so.2 The court, therefore, did not err by 

considering respondent’s lack of compliance with her substance-abuse screenings.

 

2 Respondent notes that marijuana is now legal. However, at the time the petition was initiated the 

use of marijuana was not legal in Michigan. Subsequently, as the case progressed, respondent was 

convicted of assault and battery. As part of her sentence in that case, she was required to submit 

to drug screens. Finally, we note that the mere fact that marijuana is legal does not mean that it 

may never be considered a factor in a child protective proceeding. Instead, it may be considered 

when the parent’s use of it negatively impacts the children involved. In fact, MCL 333.27955(3) 

expressly provides that: “A person shall not be denied custody of or visitation with a minor for 

conduct that is permitted by this act, unless the person’s behavior is such that it creates an 

unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.” (Emphasis 
-4-

Respondent also contends that, although she was unable to obtain independent housing, 

she has access to three homes in which she could live with her children. However, the trial court 

was correct when it determined none of these homes were appropriate. First, the maternal 

grandmother’s home is not an option because of her strained relationship with respondent, and her

habit of requesting alternative placement of the children when she fights with respondent. 

Furthermore, respondent has engaged in domestic violence against the maternal grandmother, and 

there is a possibility she may do so again, creating a dangerous and toxic environment for her 

children.3 Second, respondent’s father’s home is not an appropriate placement. Indeed, 

respondent testified that her father’s physical problems made having the children living with them 

improper. Finally, there is no indication respondent’s stepfather offered to open his home to the 

children, nor was he raised as a possible housing alternative at the best interests hearing. As a 

result, the court did not err by finding that housing continued to be a problem.

Next, respondent suggests that the children should have been placed in a guardianship as 

opposed to having her parental rights terminated. However, the only potential guardians were the 

current foster parents and the maternal grandmother. The current foster parents, however, stated 

that they were not interested in participating in a guardianship. Further, the case worker testified 

that a guardianship with the maternal grandmother would not be in the children’s best interests 

based on the maternal grandmother’s history of requesting removal of the children from her care 

due to altercations between her and respondent. In particular, the record reflects that the children 

were initially placed with the maternal grandmother, but, after an argument with respondent, the 

grandmother requested their removal. Although the incident was resolved before the children were 

removed, respondent was then convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against the maternal 

grandmother. The maternal grandmother put in her 30-day notice requesting removal of the 

children because of her inability to get along with respondent. The children were subsequently 

moved to a licensed foster home in early September 2019, but were then returned to their maternal 

grandmother’s care in late October 2019. In 2020, the maternal grandmother once again submitted 

another 30-day alternative placement request, and the children were moved to nonrelative foster 

homes in September 2020. Given that history, guardianship with the maternal grandmother is not 

in the children’s best interests. The children were already removed, replaced, and removed again 

from the maternal grandmother’s care. Their need for permanency and stability cannot be satisfied 

with a guardianship under their maternal grandmother’s care.4

 

added). Here, evidence in the record indicated that the minor child was born with THC in its 

system and that respondent’s continued marijuana use posed an unreasonable risk to the minor 

children.

3 On appeal, respondent speculates that her arguments with the maternal grandmother could have 

been because she was not taking her medication during her pregnancy with one of the children. 

There is nothing in the record to support that assertion.

4 Respondent suggests on appeal that petitioner failed to consider guardianship because of the 

children’s ages. In support, she cites to In re Affleck/Kutzleb/Simpson, 505 Mich 858 (2019), 

where our Supreme Court determined a “generalized policy” against recommending guardianship 

for children under 10 years old was improper. There was no such generalized policy here. While 
-5-

In its best-interests findings, the trial court acknowledged respondent had a bond with her 

children, but noted it was weakened because of her decreased parenting time, which was the result 

of respondent’s failure to comply with her treatment plan and missed visitation toward the end of 

the case. The court also considered the children’s need for permanency, noting that the children 

had been bounced in and out of their grandmother’s home and to different foster families before 

they had finally found permanency with their current foster parents, who wish to adopt. The trial 

court considered respondent’s history of domestic violence, the most recent of which occurred 

after she completed her classes on domestic violence under her treatment plan. The court also 

considered respondent’s recurring failure to maintain her independent therapy sessions. Overall, 

despite nearly three years to comply with the basic requirements of her treatment plan, respondent 

was unable to make any progress. In light of the foregoing, the trial court did not clearly err by 

finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola

/s/ Stephen L. Borrello

/s/ Michael J. Kelly

 

the children’s ages were a factor in the consideration, the foster care worker noted the reasoning 

behind not pursuing guardianship was because the guardian options were either unwilling or 

improper.