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UNPUBLISHED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 C. C. C. BONNER, Minor. April 11, 2024

No. 367849

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2022-000205-NA

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to the

minor child, CCCB, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (parent has deserted child for 91 days or more 

and not sought custody); (c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue to exist); (c)(ii) (other 

conditions exist causing child to come within court’s jurisdiction); (g) (failure to provide proper 

care and custody); and, (j) (reasonable likelihood the child will be harmed if returned to the parent). 

On appeal, respondent does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, and argues only 

that termination of his parental rights was contrary to CCCB’s best interests. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

CCCB was born on December 21, 2021. On that date, Children’s Protective Services 

(CPS) received information from the hospital that CCCB was born testing positive for 

amphetamines, cocaine, morphine, and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). On February 28, 2022, the 

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition against CCCB’s mother1and 

respondent requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over CCCB, who had been placed with 

her paternal aunt, Geneva Gates. Based on respondent’s admitted lack of housing and inability to 

provide for CCCB, the trial court authorized the petition and took jurisdiction over CCCB.

To attain reunification, the DHHS created a parent-agency agreement for respondent, 

which required that he: attend all court hearings; attend weekly parenting times; maintain suitable 

 

1 CCCB’s mother’s parental rights were terminated on August 24, 2023, the same date as 

respondent’s rights. However, she is not a party to this appeal.
-2-

housing; maintain contact with the DHHS; obtain a legal source of income; sign all necessary 

releases of information; and attend parenting classes. Throughout the proceedings, respondent 

failed to maintain contact with the DHHS. On numerous occasions, he did not answer phone calls,

and the DHHS could not locate him. Respondent did not attend all hearings and was removed 

from parenting classes for failing to attend. When he did communicate with the DHHS, he noted 

that his home was under construction but refused to provide an address. Further, respondent was 

unable to support his assertion that he had stable employment; he alleged that he worked at a local 

car wash but was paid under the table. Respondent sporadically exercised parenting time with 

CCCB, and when he was present, he often fell asleep, appeared disengaged, and left early.

Respondent was incarcerated in April 2023 for violating the conditions of his parole. His 

last visit with CCCB was in December 2022. On May 10, 2023, the DHHS filed a supplemental 

petition requesting that the trial court terminate respondent’s parental rights. The trial court found 

statutory grounds for termination and determined that it was in CCCB’s best interests to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights, despite the fact that CCCB was in a relative placement with Gates. 

This appeal followed.

II. BEST INTERESTS

Respondent argues that the trial court erred when it found that termination of his parental 

rights was in the best interests of CCCB because he was unable to complete his parent-agency 

agreement due to his incarceration, and CCCB was in a relative-placement with Gates. We 

disagree.

This Court reviews “for clear error the trial court’s determination of best interests.” In re 

Sanborn, 337 Mich App 252, 276; 976 NW2d 44 (2021). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous 

if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving 

due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” In re Jackisch/StammJackisch, 340 Mich App 326, 333; 985 NW2d 912 (2022).

“Once a statutory basis for termination has been shown by clear and convincing evidence, 

the court must determine whether termination is in the child’s best interests.” In re LaFrance, 306 

Mich App 713, 732-733; 858 NW2d 143 (2014), citing MCL 712A.19b(5). Whether termination 

is in the child’s best interest must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 733. 

“The focus at the best-interest stage has always been on the child, not the parent.” In re Atchley, 

341 Mich App 332, 346; 990 NW2d 685 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). When 

determining best interests,

the court should consider a wide variety of factors that may include the 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 App 701, 713-714; 846 NW2d 61 (2014)

(quotation marks and citation omitted).]
-3-

Additionally, the fact that a child is in the care of a relative at the time of the termination hearing 

is “an explicit factor to consider in determining whether termination was in [a child’s] best 

interests.” In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 43; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “Placement with a relative weighs against termination, but that fact 

is not dispositive given that a trial court may terminate parental rights in lieu of placement with 

relatives if it finds that termination is in the child’s best interests[.]” In re Atchley, 341 Mich App 

332 at 347 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

We conclude that the trial court did not clearly err when it found by a preponderance of the 

evidence that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of CCCB. The 

trial court found that throughout the proceedings, respondent was given ample time and

opportunity to comply with his parent-agency agreement before being incarcerated, yet he failed 

to do so. Respondent’s parent-agency agreement was given to him on May 9, 2022, he was arrested 

on April 22, 2023 for his parole violation, and he was sent back to prison on May 3, 2023. Thus, 

respondent had almost one full year to comply with his parent-agency agreement. Yet, the DHHS 

provided testimony from respondent’s caseworker that respondent failed to maintain contact with 

the DHHS, did not attend all court hearings, never participated in parenting classes, and did not 

demonstrate suitable housing or a stable source of income. Further, the caseworker testified that 

respondent had not exercised parenting time with CCCB since December 2022 and prior to that, 

his visits were sporadic. Given the amount of time respondent had before being incarcerated to 

comply with his parent-agency agreement, there is no evidence to support his contention that he 

would be compliant if given more time following his release from prison. This is compounded by 

the fact that respondent could only guess when he would be released. The trial court found that

even if respondent was released from jail in 90 days, he still lacked suitable housing and a stable 

income.

The trial court further found that termination was in CCCB’s best interests despite her 

placement with a relative due to her need for stability and permanency. CCCB was in Gates’s care 

since birth, was thriving, and was bonded with Gates. In addition, the caseworker testified that 

Gates reported to the DHHS that respondent did not engage with CCCB when he visited her and 

that he often fell asleep or left after a short amount of time. The caseworker also testified that 

Gates reported that respondent did not appear to have a bond with CCCB. Further, Gates was

interested in adopting CCCB and she was not interested in a guardianship. Although a child’s 

placement with a relative weighs against termination of parental rights, the trial court found that 

Gates provided CCCB with the permanency and stability that she needed and that respondent could 

not provide. Respondent claimed to have phone calls with CCCB while incarcerated, but the trial 

court did not find the calls to be enough to maintain contact with CCCB. Instead, the trial court 

determined that CCCB did not know her father and was not bonded with him. Based on our review 

of the record, this Court is not definitely and firmly convinced that the trial court erred in these 

findings. Termination of respondent’s parental rights would allow Gates to move forward with 

adoption.
-4-

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination 

of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Riordan

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien

/s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado