-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED In re PEREZ/FLANAGAN, Minors. February 12, 2015

No. 321799 Oakland Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 10-772471-NA

Before: F ORT H OOD , P.J., and J ANSEN and G ADOLA , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to two of her minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care or custody), and (j ) (risk of harm if returned to parents). We affirm.

I. FACTS

This appeal involves two of respondent’s four children, JP and AF. 1 On May 25, 2010, petitioner, the Department of Human Services, filed a petition seeking custody of respondent’s minor children, alleging that on May 21, 2010, respondent was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana and driving with a suspended license while AF was in the vehicle. The petition alleged that respondent had a history with Child Protective Services (CPS) dating back to 1997, when TL was born and tested positive for drugs, and that respon dent continued to use drugs before the filing of the petiti on. At a pretrial hearing on Ju ly 1, 2010, respondent admitted that she was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana and dr iving with a suspended license, admitted that she had two prior convictions for operating a veh icle while under the influence of alcohol in 1993 and 2004, and admitted that BL, TL, and JP were placed in a guardianship in 2005 while she was in prison. The court ordered respondent to comply with a case services plan that required her to submit to a psychological evaluation and c omply with all recommendations, to participate in parenting classes, to address her substance a buse problems, to complete random

1 Respondent is also the mother of two older children, BL and TL , who were removed from the termination petition because the court assigned them permanency planning goals of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrange ment-Emancipation (APPLA-E) due to their respective ages.-2- drug screens, to obtain stable housing and income, and to compl y with the terms of her probation.

At a review hearing on July 21, 2011, testimony indicated that respondent missed nine drug screens and tested positive for alcohol on one screen. Fo llowing an emergency hearing on December 21, 2011, the court restricted respondent to supervise d parenting visits after she failed a drug screen. At a hearing on March 15, 2012, testimony revea led that respondent completed a parenting class, participated in services to address her emotio nal issues and substance abuse, and passed all recent drug screens. Thereafter, the court gave pet itioner the discretion to return the children, pending respondent’s abi lity to obtain suitable housi ng. In August 2012, JP and AF were returned to respondent’s care.

On February 4, 2013, the court held an emergency removal heari ng after respondent was sentenced to 30 days’ incarceratio n for violating her probation by driving with a suspended license, and the children were removed again. On March 22, 201 3, the court held an emergency hearing after respondent was arre sted a second time for driving with a suspended license and was observed with her boyfriend selling illicit substances to a min or child. Testimony revealed that respondent’s boyfriend was criminally charged, and that he had been living with respondent without the knowledge of petitioner. The children’s foster par ents also reported that respondent called to speak with her childre n sounding intoxicated. On Jun e 20, 2013, petitioner filed a supplemental petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights

. On March 21, 2014, the trial court filed a termination order that declared separately that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 7 12A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g), and (j), and that termination was in the children’s best interests.

II. STATUTORY FACTORS

Respondent first argues that the lower court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the statutory factors. We review for clear error a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights. In re Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). A decision to ter minate parental rights is cl early erroneous if, after reviewing the entire record, we are defin itely and firmly convinced that the lower court made a mistake. In re JK , 468 Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003).

To terminate parental rights, a court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b(3) is established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Sours , 459 Mich 624, 632; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). In this case, the tr ial court terminated respondent’s parental right s under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g), and (j), which provide the following:

(3) The court may terminate a parent’s parental rights to a ch ild if the court finds, by clear and convinc ing evidence, 1 or more of the following:

* * *-3- (c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of aninitial dispositional order, and the c ourt, by clear and convincing evi dence, finds either of the 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.

* * *

(g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide pro per care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation th at the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable tim e considering the child’s age.

* * *

(j) There is a reasonable lik elihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent.

The lower court did not clearly err in finding clear and convi ncing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ). At the time of the adjudication, respondent admitted to possessing cocaine and marijuana and operating a vehicle whi le on a suspended license. Respondent’s contact with CPS date d back to 1997 when one of he r children was born and tested positive for cocaine. Respondent also had a history of alcohol abuse and was convicted of operating a vehicle while under th e influence of alcohol in 199 3 and 2004.

Respondent continued to disregard the law throughout these pro ceedings. Respondent’s children were removed from her care a second time after she was incarcerated for violating her probation by driving with a suspe nded license. Shortly after s he was released in 2013, respondent was cited again for driving with a suspended license . During this second incident, respondent’s boyfriend was arrested because he had drugs in his possession and sold them to a minor. Respondent’s involvement in the situation and her decis ion to drive on a suspended license demonstrated her conti nuing disregard for the law.

Respondent also did not rectify he r substance abuse issues. T hroughout the three years her children were in protective custody, respondent missed seve ral drug screens and tested positive for alcohol and adulterants on multiple occasions. Re spondent’s psychological evaluation indicated she began r eceiving services in 2008, but failed to benefit from them. Respondent had a 25-year history of substance abuse and relapse , which continued throughout these proceedings. The trial co urt did not clear ly err in find ing that terminatio n was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ).

A parent’s failure to comply with the case service plan is evi dence supporting termination under both MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 712-713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). Likewise, failing to provide safe and stable housin g and sufficient income, and-4- failing to attend hearings demons trates an inability to provide proper care and custody and a possibility of harm. In re Laster , 303 Mich App 485, 493-495; 845 NW2d 540 (2013). Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), a court may consider the possibility of bot h physical and emotional harm. In re Hudson , 294 Mich App 261, 268; 817 NW2d 115 (2011).

Again, respondent’s service plan required her to submit to a p sychological evaluation and comply with all recommendations, to participate in parenting cl asses, to address her substance abuse problems, to pass random drug screens, to obtain stable h ousing and income, and to comply with the terms of her probation. Respondent was not con sistently employed throughout the proceedings. She had four different jobs while the childre n were in care and several periods of unemployment. Although she completed parenting classes, she contacted one of her children in violation of a no contact ord er and addressed inappropriate topics with her children during visits. Moreover, despite having been through a substance abus e treatment program, respondent was unable to demonstrate that she could remain substance free. She continued to use alcohol while the children were in care. Respondent’s drug and alcohol abuse and the company she kept exposed the children to a risk of harm. Accordingly, the lower court did not clearly err in terminating her parental right s under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j ).

III. BEST INTERESTS

Respondent also argues the lower court erred in finding termin ation was in her children’s best interests. We disagree. We review a trial court’s findin g that termination was in the best interests of a chil d for clear error. In re Trejo , 462 Mich 341, 364; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).

A court shall terminate parental rights “[i]f the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5); see also In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 83; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). In performing a best interest inquiry, a court may con sider the bond between the child and parent, the parent’s parenting skills, and the child’s need for permanency and stability. Olive/Metts , 297 Mich App at 41-42. “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 ch ild, the children’s well-being wh ile in care, and the possibility of adoption.” In re White , 303 Mich App 701, 714; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

Respondent argues that she had a bond with her children, but s he never demonstrated that she could maintain a safe and st able home for the m. The trial court stated that respondent’s bond with JP was “extremely straine d.” Further, the court noted tha t the children were in protective custody for nearly 46 months, and emphasized the children’s nee d for permanency and stability. As previously discussed, respondentfailed to comply with and b enefit from her case service plan. The lower court did not e rr in finding termination was i n the best interests of the children.

Finally, respondent argues that petitioner failed to adequatel y assess her family for placement. However, respondent does not indicate that interest ed and appropriate relatives were available. Moreover, petitione r placed respondent’s children w ith their maternal grandparents until August 2012 when the children were briefly returned to re spondent’s care. The court addressed the possibility of guardianship and placement with th ese grandparents at the bestinterest hearing, but determined neither option was appropriate because the maternal-5- grandparents lacked suitable housing. Although a court must ex pressly address family placement in its best interest inquiry if the children are resi ding with a relative, Olive Metts , 297 Mich App at 43-44, in this case, respondent’s children were not placed with a relative at the time the court terminated her pare ntal rights, and a family placemen t was not a viable option.

Affirmed.

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Michael F. Gadola