-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

 

UNPUBLISHED 

In re CURNS, Minors. August 20, 2015 

No. 326081 

Clare Circuit Court 

 Family Division 

LC No. 14-000079-NA 

 

Before: OWENS, P.J., and SAAD and GADOLA, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Respondent appeals the trial court’s order that terminated her parental rights to her 

children, EC and AC, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). For the 

reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 The Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS” or “the Department”) filed a 

petition for temporary custody over the minor children in October 2014, because respondent—

who has a long history of substance abuse and has had her parental rights to other children 

terminated in the past1—was pulled over in a vehicle that contained materials for producing 

methamphetamine. This traffic stop led to the search of her home, which she shares with her 

husband Kenneth Husted.2

 During the search, the police found methamphetamine, and 

equipment and supplies used to produce the drug. Respondent claimed that she did not know 

whether Kenneth manufactured methamphetamine in the house, and that she did not think 

Kenneth used drugs in the home. 

 Accordingly, the Department’s petition noted that respondent: (1) made her residence an 

unsafe environment for children by allowing it to be a meth house; (2) continued to use drugs 

 

1

 Specifically, respondent’s parental rights to two other children, JD and LD, were terminated in 

2006 because of respondent’s extensive substance abuse. The facts of that case closely parallel 

the facts of the instant action: the Department sought to protect JD and LD because of 

respondent’s drug use, and, despite the provision of extensive services from the state to help 

respondent overcome these problems, she was not able to overcome her addiction. 

2

 Kenneth is not the minor children’s biological father. 
-2- 

along with her husband; and (3) had a “toxic” relationship with her husband that had a negative 

impact on the children.3

 The trial court granted the petition and placed the children with 

Kenneth’s sister (who is not related to them by blood), but eventually moved them to their 

maternal grandmother’s home. 

 Over the next few months, the Department attempted to help respondent combat her 

substance abuse by providing treatment services, and respondent appeared to have a job that she 

maintained. However, she continued to use drugs and failed to improve the condition of her 

home, which still remained a meth den in poor condition, with security issues and other safety 

problems. She also became uncooperative with Department workers and frequently missed 

parenting time. 

 The trial court assumed jurisdiction over the children in January 2015 based on 

respondent’s: (1) previously terminated parental rights to another child; (2) extensive history of 

and continued problems with substance abuse; (3) lack of participation in the prior proceedings; 

and (4) methamphetamine-related traffic stop and the fact that her home was used for 

methamphetamine production. The court noted that it assumed jurisdiction over the children 

with the knowledge that one of them had expressed her wish not to be separated from her 

mother.4

 Later in January 2015, DHHS sought to terminate respondent’s parental rights based on 

the above. At the termination hearing, the trial court heard testimony from a Child Protective 

Services employee and a foster-care worker, both of whom recommended termination, and the 

children’s maternal grandmother, who asked the court to preserve respondent’s parental rights. 

Respondent did not testify because she arrived to the hearing approximately two hours after the 

hearing began, at which time the trial court was ready to issue its decision. 

 Based on the above facts and testimony, the trial court terminated respondent’s parental 

rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (l).5 The court then held that termination was in the 

 

3

 Respondent acknowledged as much, and stated that in 2014, she and Kenneth had a “rough two 

years” that involved “a lot of arguing.” She also noted that she relapsed into methamphetamine 

use in July 2014, and used the drug “maybe twice” per month. A drug test administered in early 

October 2014 confirmed respondent’s drug use, as she tested positive for methamphetamine, 

amphetamine, and ephedrine. 

4

 EC and AC are older than the children our Court usually sees in a termination of parental rights 

appeal—they are 17 and 16, respectively. Notwithstanding EC’s desire to remain in contact with 

her mother, the foster-care worker testified at the termination hearing that both EC and AC did 

not understand “why [respondent] would continue to use substances and choose not to visit 

them.” 

5

 MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (l) authorize a court to terminate a respondent’s parental rights when: 

(i) Parental rights to 1 or more siblings of the child have been terminated due to 

serious and chronic neglect or physical or sexual abuse, and prior attempts to 

rehabilitate the parents have been unsuccessful. 
-3- 

best interests of the children because of respondent’s ongoing problems and refusal to 

demonstrate that her children, as opposed to her drug habit, are her first priority. 

 On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred when it found that termination was 

in the best interests of the children. The Department asks us to affirm the trial court’s decision. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 “We review for clear error . . . the court’s decision regarding the child’s best interest 

under MCL 712A.19b(5).” In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 40-41; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). 

“A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing 

court on the entire record is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” In re Campbell, 170 Mich App 243, 253-254; 428 NW2d 347 (1988). 

III. ANALYSIS 

 When a trial court determines whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best 

interests, it looks to, among other things: “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.” In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations omitted). 

“[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proved by a 

preponderance of the evidence.” In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). 

 Here, in its consideration of the children’s best interests, the trial court properly 

considered the children’s need for “permanency, stability, and finality,” and respondent’s lack of 

parenting ability. Respondent, despite the fact that she has lost her parental rights before—again, 

her rights to two of her other children were terminated in 2006—has failed to change her 

destructive behavior in the intervening years. According to the testimony provided by the social 

workers who have been involved in this case, and even respondent’s own mother, respondent 

continues to abuse drugs, frequently skipped parenting time, and failed to take advantage of the 

services provided by the state to help her overcome her substance abuse and improve her 

parenting skills. Moreover, respondent’s home, which respondent allowed her husband to use as 

a methamphetamine production facility, is hardly a safe environment for children. 

 Respondent’s arguments that the trial court failed to consider EC and AC’s placement 

with a relative in its determination of their best interests are flatly contradicted by the record. In 

fact, the trial court explicitly noted that its decision took “a great deal of consideration of the fact 

that [the children] are in relative placement,” thus complying with the procedural requirements of 

In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 164; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). 

* * * 

(l) The parent’s rights to another child were terminated as a result of proceedings 

under [MCL 712A.2] or a similar law of another state. 
-4- 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Donald S. Owens 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

/s/ Michael F. Gadola