-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

 

UNPUBLISHED 

In re SPENCER, Minors. December 8, 2016 

No. 332336 

Wayne Circuit Court 

 Family Division 

LC No. 00-390400-NA 

 

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and CAVANAGH and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

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

children, ETS1 and ETS2, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care or 

custody), MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) (parental rights to one or more siblings of the child were 

terminated due to serious and chronic neglect and prior attempts to rehabilitate have been 

unsuccessful), MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(l) 

(parental rights to other children were terminated). We affirm. 

 Respondent and the children’s mother were in a long-term relationship and had five 

children, including the minor children at issue in this case. Respondent’s parental rights to the 

three other children were previously terminated. According to the petition, respondent’s parental 

rights to one additional child were terminated, but respondent denied any knowledge of being the 

child’s biological father. 

 ETS1 was removed from respondent’s and the mother’s custody shortly following birth. 

ETS1 tested positive for marijuana at birth, and the mother admitted to smoking marijuana 

during the pregnancy. Respondent and the mother engaged in, and appeared to have benefited 

from, services, and ETS1 was returned to their care. ETS1 was subsequently removed from the 

mother’s care after the mother was hospitalized while pregnant. The mother tested positive for 

marijuana and had a blood alcohol level of .227. Petitioner sought termination of the mother’s 

parental rights, and ETS1 was released to respondent. Moreover, shortly after the birth of ETS2, 

who tested positive for marijuana, petitioner sought termination of the mother’s parental rights to 

ETS2, and ETS2 was released to respondent. The mother’s parental rights were subsequently 

terminated, and the trial court warned respondent that the children were not allowed to be in 

contact with her. However, respondent relapsed on substances and served a jail sentence for 

domestic violence against the mother. Petitioner subsequently sought to remove the children and 

terminate respondent’s parental rights after it became apparent that respondent continued to 

allow the mother to have access to the children, and because the children were in the custody of 
-2- 

an alcoholic during the time respondent was in jail for domestic violence against the mother. 

During the hearing on the petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights, respondent pleaded 

no contest and stipulated to the statutory grounds for termination. The court subsequently held a 

best-interest hearing and determined that it would be in the children’s best interests to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights. 

 Respondent argues that the trial court erred by finding that termination was in the best 

interests of the children. We disagree. 

 This determination is reviewed for clear error. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 

NW2d 61 (2014). “The trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous if the evidence 

supports them, but we are definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mistake.” Id. at 709-

710. 

 “The trial court must order the parent’s rights terminated if [petitioner] has established a 

statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence and it finds from a 

preponderance of the evidence on the whole record that termination is in the children’s best 

interests.” White, 303 Mich App at 713. In deciding whether termination of parental rights is in 

the best interest of the child, the court considers a variety of factors, which 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.’ ” Id.

(citation omitted). “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.” Id. at 714. 

 “However, because ‘a child’s placement with relatives weighs against termination under 

MCL 712A.19a(6)(a),’ the fact that a child is living with relatives when the case proceeds to 

termination is a factor to be considered in determining whether termination is in the child’s best 

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

omitted). “A trial court’s failure to explicitly address whether termination is appropriate in light 

of the children’s placement with relatives renders the factual record inadequate to make a bestinterest determination and requires reversal.” Id. 

 The trial court did not clearly err by determining that termination was in the children’s 

best interests. As indicated by the trial court, respondent has an extensive history with petitioner, 

and his parental rights to several other children were previously terminated. At the time of 

termination of respondent’s parental rights to the children, he did not have appropriate housing 

and was living in a transitional house, which was not appropriate for the children. In addition, 

respondent admitted that he had been an alcoholic for the majority of his life, and this condition 

persisted even after his parental rights to other children were terminated. Moreover, the fact that 

respondent went into a recovery program suggests he was abusing substances after ETS1 was 

returned to his care. Additionally, respondent served a jail sentence for domestic violence, and 

his children were left in the care of an alcoholic during the time respondent was in jail. Most 

importantly, the Child Protective Services (CPS) worker testified that respondent continued to 

allow the mother to have access to the children, in violation of the court’s order, and the 

evidence indicated that respondent would likely continue this relationship. 
-3- 

 Furthermore, respondent’s argument that the court failed to consider the children’s 

placement with relatives is without merit. The court expressly addressed the fact that the 

children were residing with their paternal aunt and yet still determined that it was in their best 

interests to terminate respondent’s parental rights. Therefore, we find no clear error in the trial 

court’s determination that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests and “was a necessary step in allowing the children to have the safety, permanence, and 

stability to which they are entitled.” In re Hudson, 294 Mich App 261, 269; 817 NW2d 115 

(2011). 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh 

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra