-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED In re CRAWFORD/MITCHELL/STAFFORD, Minors. July 12, 2016

No. 330313 St. Clair Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 14-000141-NA

Before: R IORDAN , P.J., and S AAD and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent mother appeals the order that terminated her parent al rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712.19b(3)(c)( i ) (conditions of adjudication continue to exist), (c)( ii ) (other conditions supporting juri sdiction have not been rectifi ed), (g) (failure to provide proper care or custody), and (j) (reasona ble likelihood of harm if chi ld is returned to parent). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.

In June 2014, the court authori zed an amended petition seeking court jurisdic tion over the minor children and termination of respondent’s parental rights. According to the petition, respondent had two older children removed from her care in 2000 and 2001 and her parental rights to those children were ter minated. The petition further alleged that respondent had a long history of Children’s Protective Services complaints involving physical abuse, substance abuse, improper supervision, physical neg lect, and domestic violence; numerous services had been offered, but respondent continued to display harmful and destru ctive behaviors. Respondent admitted to the allegations and the court assumed jurisdiction over the minor children. At disposition, the court ordered re spondent to comply with a trea tment plan that required her to engage in various services. At the first review hearing, the c ourt ordered respondent to obtain stable housing and income.

In May 2015, the court authorized a petition to terminate resp ondent’s parental rights based on respondent’s lack of progr ess on her treatment plan. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating res pondent’s parental rights.

In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must fi nd that at least one of the statutory grounds for terminati on in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been p roven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Ellis , 294 Mich App 30, 32; 817 NW2d 111 (2011). Only one statutory ground need be established to support termination of respondent’s pare ntal rights. In re Foster , 285 Mich App 630, 633; 776 NW2d 415 (2009). Termination was based on MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (c)( ii ), (g), and (j), which provide as follows:-2- (c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under t his chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial disp ositional order, and the court, by clear and convinci ng evidence, finds either of th e 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.

* * *

(g) The parent, without regard t o intent, fails to provide prop er care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the paren t will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time consid ering the child’s
age.

* * *

(j) There is a reasonable like lihood, based on the conduct or c apacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is r eturned to the home of the parent.

Respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding that a ny statutory grounds were established. “This Court reviews for clear error the trial cou rt’s factual findings and ultimate determinations on the statutory grounds for termination.” In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 709; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm convict ion that a mistake was made. In re Mason , 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010).

The conditions that led to the c ourt taking jurisdiction over the minor children was respondent’s long history of continuing physical abuse and negl ect, substance abuse, improper supervision, and domestic violence, despite many services. Res pondent continued to neglect her children by failing to obtain stable housing for them. Respond ent never established her own home while this case was pendi ng, and her housing situation was inconsistent: she lived at a sister’s house, with a friend, in hotels, and in a shelter. Re spondent also failed to address her tendency to engage in abusive c onduct toward he r children. Iss ues in this area w ere noted during parenting time, as respondent woul d threaten her children and w orkers had to inte rrupt the visits many times to remind respondent “not to put her hands on the ch ildren.” Respondent failed to complete an anger management program, which would have directlyaddressed this issue. Respondent also made limited progress in therapy and failed to engage in sessions.-3- Respondent also failed to resolve her substance abuse issue. Respondent was ordered to have random drug/alcohol tests, but she was noncompliant. She acknowledged that she missed screens because she was engaging in substance use. Although re spondent entered a drug rehabilitation program in June 2015, she relapsed into cocaine use after that, which resulted in a probation violation and jail term.

Respondent failed to address the issue of domestic violence be cause she was referred to a domestic violence program but failed to attend. And while this case was pending, respondent also began to have issues with criminality; she had a warrant f or her arrest in June 2015 because she pleaded guilty to uttering and publishing a fraudulent chec k.

Because respondent had a long history of abusing and neglectin g her children and because she failed to avail herself of services designed to hel p her, the trial court did not clearly err in finding grounds to terminate respondent’s parental right s under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), and we need not expressly consid er whether the additional groun ds that the trial court cited were met as well. See In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 461; 781 NW2d 105 (2009).

Respondent also argues that the trial court erred in finding t hat termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children. We review th e trial court’s best interest determination according to the same clear error standard used i n reviewing the trial court’s decision regarding the statut ory grounds for termination. In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012).

In deciding a child’s best interests, a court may consider the child’s bond to his parent; the parent’s parenting ability; the child’s need for permanency , stability, and finality; and the suitability of alternative homes. In re White , 303 Mich App at 713; In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App at 41-42. The trial court should weigh all the evidence av ailable to determine the child’s best interests. In re White , 303 Mich App at 713. Whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proven by a preponderan ce of the evidence. In re Moss
, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013).

Here, respondent presented numerous witnesses to attest to her parenting skills and to attest that she engaged in some services. However, as the tria l court noted, there was no evidence to establish that res pondent was closely bonded with h er children. As already noted, respondent failed to address her substance abuse problems, lack ed housing, placed her children at serious risk of harm, and exhibited troubling behaviors duri ng parenting time. She lacked progress in therapy and otherwise failed to comply with a treatment plan designed to ensure she could safely parent her children. In sum, a preponderance of t he evidence established that termination of respondent’s paren tal rights was in the children ’s best interests, and the trial court did not clearly err i n its best-interest determination.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Riordan /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Michael J. Kelly