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UNPUBLISHED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 B. N. FULWIDER, Minor. June 23, 2022

No. 358377 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 2006

- 461408

- NA

Before: M ARKEY

, P .J., and S HAPIRO and P ATEL , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent appeals the trial court ’ s order terminating h er parental rights to BF 1 under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood that child will be harmed if returned to parent).

Because we find that termination i s the best in terests of the child, w e affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Respondent has a lengthy history with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

. Four years prior to BF’s birth, respondent’s parental rights were terminated with regard

to another child. Shortly after BF’s birth, DHHS petitioned for BF’s removal due to the prior

termination. While BF and respondent were ultimately reunified, B F was removed from respondent’s care four years later because she left him alone in a hot car while she was shopping. Respondent regained custody of BF after she participated in additional reunification services

.

But t wo years after reunification , a third petition was filed b ecause BF was found wandering outside exposed to the winter elements with out a coat, shoes, socks or appropriate clothing on multiple occasions in a two

- month period

. BF, who has developmental and cognitive

deficits , escape d the unlocked home without respondent’s knowle dge

. During the home visits, CPS

workers observed bruis es on BF , noted that his basic hygiene needs were neglected , and

1 The identity and whereabouts of BF’s biological father are unknown and unascertainable. Accordingly, the u nknown father’s parental rights to BF were terminated for abandonment.- 2

-

documented unsuitable living conditions

. Respondent failed to follow through with safety and

treatment plans that were developed to address BF ’s special needs

.

Due to the significant risk to BF’s personal safety, DHHS filed a petition requesting that

the trial court take jurisdiction over BF under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), and enter an order terminating respondent ’ s parental rights t o BF under MCL 712A.19b(3) (g) (failure to provide custody and care despite financial ability to do so), (i) (parental rights to one or more siblings of the child previously terminated with failure to remedy contributing conditions), and (j).

R espondent pleaded no contest to jurisdiction and the existence of statutory grounds for

termination. Respondent, who suffers from mental health issues, was requested to undergo a clinic

evaluation to aid in determining BF’s best interests

. T he referee determined tha t statutory grounds for termination existed pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) and that termination was in BF ’ s best

interests. The trial court adopted the referee’s findings and terminated respondent’s parental rights. This appeal followed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court ’ s decision that termination is in the child ’ s best interests for clear

error. In re Schadler , 315 Mich App 406, 408; 890 NW2d 676 (2016)

. A finding is clearly

erroneous when this Court is “ left with a definite and firm conv iction that a mistake has been

made. ” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). “ To be clearly erroneous, a decision must be more than maybe or probably wrong. ” In re Ellis , 294 Mich App 30, 33; 817 NW2d 111 (2011). This Court must consider “the speci al opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination of her parental rights was in BF ’ s best interests . We disagree.

Whether termination is in the children’s best interests must be established by a preponderance of the evidence

. In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013)

. The

focus of the best

- interest determination is on the child, not the parent. In re Schadler , 315 Mich App at 411. Factors to be considered for purposes of the best

- interest analysis 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 o f a foster home over the parent ’ s home. ” In re Olive/Metts Minors

, 297 Mich App 35, 41

- 42 ; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (citations omitted)

. Other relevant factors include

“ 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, 7 14 ; 846 NW2d 61 (2014)

. “ If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that termination of parenta l rights is in the child ’ s best interests, the court shall order termination of parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be made. ” MCL 712A.19b(5).

Here, a preponderance of the evidence in the r ecord supports that respondent ’s inadequate care and supervision of BF repeatedly jeopardized the child’s health and safety

. Respondent failed- 3

-

to appreciate the magnitude of BF’s special needs , failed to recognize dangerous behaviors, and

failed maintain necessary mental health and cognitive services for BF

. Respondent’s inadequate caretaking and supervision of BF , as well as her failure to consistently manage her mental health issues, exposed BF to danger on multiple occasions

. T he revolving nature of DHH S’s in volvement with respondent over a span of 15 years suggests that the cycle would likely continue. DHHS

cannot provide indefinite supervision . And while , at times, respondent was engaged in weekly supervised visits with BF, she fell asleep or was other wise distracted at other times

. BF’s need s for permanence, stability

, and long

- term safety outweigh any bond that may exist

. Accordingly,

we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termi n ation of respondent’s parental rights was i n BF’s best interests.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights.

/s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

/s/ Sima G. Patel