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UNPUBLISHED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 IMP, Minor. September 24, 2020

No. 353024

Macomb Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2017-000167-NA

PER CURIAM.

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

minor son, IMP, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(iii). We affirm.

I. FACTS

Children’s Protective Services (CPS) was contacted after IMP, then three months old, was 

treated at a hospital for a broken arm. Based on the nature of the injury, hospital staff believed the 

injury was caused by abuse. At the time of the injury, IMP was at home with respondent and 

IMP’s mother was at work. 

Respondent admitted that he broke IMP’s arm, but maintained that it was an accident. 

Earlier that day, respondent drove IMP’s mother to work with IMP in the car. When respondent 

returned home with IMP, he left IMP in his car seat on the floor next to the couch. Respondent 

fell asleep on the couch and woke up when IMP screamed. Respondent claims he fell off the couch 

and onto IMP’s arm, which was hanging over the side of the car seat. Respondent texted IMP’s 

mother and told her about IMP’s scream and subsequent crying, but he did not tell her what caused

IMP to scream. IMP eventually quieted down and fell asleep. Respondent did not obtain medical 

treatment for IMP. IMP’s mother knew something was wrong because IMP cried when she 

attempted to take him out of the car seat after respondent picked her up from work several hours 

later. IMP’s mother took IMP to the pediatrician, who told her to take IMP to the hospital. There, 

the staff found IMP’s radius and ulna bones of his right arm were broken. IMP remained in the 

hospital for a week.

After the discovery of IMP’s injury, respondent was charged criminally and pleaded no 

contest to third-degree child abuse. Additionally, the instant petition was filed by the Department 

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and SWARTZLE, JJ.
-2-

of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for the court to exercise jurisdiction over IMP, order 

respondent to vacate the home he shared with IMP and IMP’s mother, and terminate respondent’s 

parental rights. The court authorized the petition and ordered respondent to vacate the home, 

leaving IMP in his mother’s care. Respondent pleaded no contest to the court’s jurisdiction and to 

the statutory grounds for termination. The trial court found termination of respondent’s parental 

rights to be in IMP’s best interests and terminated respondent’s parental rights. Respondent now 

appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent argues the trial court clearly erred by finding termination of his parental rights 

to be in IMP’s best interests. Specifically, he argues the future risk of harm to IMP from physical 

abuse was minimal in comparison to the larger risk of harm from IMP losing his father. IMP’s 

mother could have received full custody of IMP and respondent could have continued to have 

supervised visits, without risk of harm to IMP. We disagree.

We review the trial court’s determination that termination of parental rights is in a child’s 

best interests for clear error. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). A finding 

is clearly erroneous if although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire 

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Mason, 

486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). Best interests are determined on the basis of the 

preponderance of the evidence. In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich App 713, 733; 858 NW2d 143 

(2014). A trial court may consider evidence introduced by any party and consider the evidence on 

the whole record to determine whether termination is in a child’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 

Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). To determine whether termination serves a child’s best 

interests, the trial court should consider a variety of factors, including:

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. [White, 303 Mich App at 713-714 (quotation marks and 

citations omitted).]

During the pendency of this case, respondent completed numerous parts of a proposed 

Parent-Agency Agreement (PAA). He completed a parenting class within two months of this case 

beginning and entered therapy to treat his anxiety. Respondent obtained employment, housing, 

his driver’s license, and a vehicle. For over two years while these proceedings were ongoing, 

respondent consistently visited IMP for several hours at least once a week. He arrived on time or 

early for his visits and DHHS had no concerns about IMP’s safety or the appropriateness of 

respondent’s conduct during those visits. 

However, respondent failed to seek immediate medical treatment for IMP after breaking 

his arm, and waited several hours for IMP’s mother to get home and take him to the hospital. 

During the four months between the two termination hearings, respondent visited IMP only once 

and stopped allowing the DHHS designee to supervise his visits because, he contended, the 
-3-

designee neglected IMP by chain smoking in her small apartment. Respondent further asserted 

that the designee had “a table full of pills she pops” and would fall asleep with cigarettes in her 

hand while IMP did whatever he wanted. Yet respondent did not report this supposed neglect to 

DHHS or the court, despite knowing the designee occasionally babysat IMP in addition to the 

supervised visits with respondent. 

According to IMP’s mother, the decision to stop supervising respondent’s visits was made 

by the designee because respondent was not interacting with IMP during his visits. Instead, 

respondent would spend the time talking about his new girlfriend and the baby they were 

expecting. Respondent testified that his failure to maintain regular visits during those four months 

was due to scheduling conflicts between himself, IMP’s mother, and the DHHS worker responsible 

for supervising visits in the absence of a designee. However, the DHHS worker testified that 

respondent made only three unsuccessful attempts to schedule a visit during that time. 

Moreover, in another instance, respondent agreed to give the mother of one of his other 

five children sole custody of the child they had together, despite knowing she had substance abuse 

issues, and he made no effort to protect the child. How a parent treats one child is certainly 

probative of how that parent may treat other children. In the Matter of LaFlure, 48 Mich App 377, 

392; 210 NW2d 482 (1973); see also In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33 (2001).

The trial court expressed concern about respondent’s ability to keep IMP safe, and noted 

that on three occasions respondent failed to respond to the safety needs of his children: first, he 

did not seek medical treatment for IMP after his arm was broken; second, he had not taken any 

steps to protect his other child from its substance-abusing mother; and third, he did not report his 

concerns about the designee to DHHS or the court. Given these concerns, the fact that IMP’s 

mother was providing IMP with a safe and stable environment, and IMP’s need for permanency 

and finality, the court found termination to be in IMP’s best interests. 

Respondent’s improvements and attempts to maintain a relationship with IMP during these 

proceedings are admirable, but the trial court’s concern for IMP’s safety and desire to give IMP

stability are supported by the record, and constitute valid reasons for terminating respondent’s 

parental rights. White, 303 Mich App at 713-714. Respondent’s argument that supervised visits 

could have been continued, apparently indefinitely, is unpersuasive considering the court’s desire 

to give IMP stability and finality. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that termination of 

respondent’s parental rights was in IMP’s best interests was not clearly erroneous. Mason, 486 

Mich at 152. 

III. CONCLUSION

The trial court properly concluded that termination of respondent’s parental rights to IMP 

were in IMP’s best interests. Accordingly, we affirm.

/s/ Michael J. Riordan 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle