-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED

In re MENHART, Minors. June 22, 2017

No. 335249 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 14-516402-NA

Before: J ANSEN , P.J., and M URPHY and B ORRELLO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Respondent appeals as of right an order terminating her parent al rights to the minor children, SM, AM, and FM, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) (conditions of adjudication continue to exist), MCL 712A.19b(3 )(g) (failure to provide prop er care or custody for the children), MCL 712A.19b( 3)(i) (parental rights to one or more s iblings have been terminated due to serious and chronic neglect o r physical or sexual abuse), an d MCL 712A.19b(3)(j ) (reasonable

likelihood the child will be harme d if returned to the parent). We affirm.

On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court clearly erre d in finding that the statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) were proven by clea r and convincing evidence and that the court further erred in finding that termination was in th e best interests of the child ren. If a trial court finds that a single statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence and that it has been proved by a prepondera nce of the evidence that term ination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the court is mandated to terminate a respondent's parental rights to that child. MCL 712A.19b(3) and (5); In re Beck , 488 Mich 6, 10-11; 793 NW2d 562 (2010); In re
Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013); In re Ellis , 294 Mich App 30, 32; 817 NW2d 111 (2011). “This Court revi ews for clear e rror the trial court's ruling that a statutory ground for termination has been established and its ruling that termination is in the children's

best interests.” In re Hudson , 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011); see also MCR 3.977(K). “A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there i s evidence to support it, we are left

with a definite and firm convicti on that a mistake has been mad e.” In re HRC , 286 Mich App 444, 459; 781 NW2d 105 (2009). In applying the clear error sta ndard in parental termination cases, “regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” In re Miller , 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The trial court must “state on the record or in writing its fin dings of fact and conclusions of law[,] [and] [b]rief, definite, and pertinent findings and conc lusions on contested matters are sufficient.” MCR 3.977(I)(1) (rule pertains to termination pro ceedings).-2- We first note that respondent f ails to challenge the trial cou rt’s ruling that there existed clear and convincing evidence in support of termination under M CL 712A.19b(3)(i). Given that only one statutory ground need s to be established, MCL 712A.19b (3), and that respondent fails to claim error with respect to § 19b(3)(i), respo ndent’s genera l appellate argument regarding the statutory grounds for termination necessarily fails. Neverthel ess, we shall examine the three remaining statutory grounds c ited by the trial court.

MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) provides that a court may term inate parental rights under the following circumstances:

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

( 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.

We conclude that the trial cour t did not clearly err in findin g clear and convincing evidence in support of termina tion under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ). In the initial petition regarding SM, AM, and FM, petitioner asked the court to take ju risdiction over the three minor

children due to the sexual assaul t of SM by respondent’s male f riend, which took place while the children were spending the night alone with the friend in his h ome. After Child Protective Services (CPS), a division of the Department of Health and Huma n Services, made respondent aware of the allegations regar ding sexual abuse, respondent con tinued to allow her male friend to

be alone with all three minor children. CPS received another r eferral alleging that FM had been physically abused by respondent’s b rother. The children disclo sed to CPS that their uncle had gotten angry and threw a shoe at FM. The shoe made contact wit h FM’s left leg and caused “an injury.” A forensic interview also revealed that SM, AM, and F M had witnessed a domestic violence incident between respondent and her then-partner. Dur ing respondent’s nine prior interactions with CPS between 2001 and 2014, she had been offer ed services, but “did not make herself available for services, did not comply or communicate w ith CPS, and then services were cancelled.” As of April 2014, respondent lacked stable housing and a legal source of income, and all three children had “special dental needs” and were extr emely behind academically.

As of September 2016, the cond itions that led to adjudication continued to exist. Respondent’s treatment plan requi red that she obtain safe and s uitable housing and a legal source of income, that she complete parenting classes, individual ther apy, and family therapy, and that

she have no contact with the m ale friend who sexually abused SM . Respondent was allowed supervised visits with the children. Over two and one-half yea rs passed between the filing of the original petition and the termination hearing. During that tim e, respondent failed to complete individual therapy and failed to take accountability for allowi ng the male friend to continue to be around SM, despite being aware of the sexual assault against SM . Respondent also never progressed far enough in individual therapy to be able to work towards completing family therapy with SM. Throughout the proceedings, there were multip le allegations that respondent

continued to be in contact with the male friend or was having s ome type of relationship with him, despite being ordered to have no contact with him at all. Resp ondent failed to demonstrate that-3- she had safe and suitable housi ng for the children. Although r espondent claimed that her father’s home was safe and suitable, her father refused t o allow petitio ner to do the necessary background investigation to allow the children to visit or to be placed th ere. Respondent failed to obtain a source of legal income, save for one month prior to the termina tion hearing. Respondent did complete parenting classes; however, what she gleaned from thos e classes could not be ascertained as she missed roughly half of the visits with the c hildren that were afforded to her. Respondent also refused to respond to text messages and telepho ne calls from her children. Based on the foregoing, it cannot be said that the trial court clearly erred by finding that petitioner had presented clear and convincing evidence to suppo rt the termination of respondent’s parental right s under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ).

MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) provides that a court may terminate parenta l rights when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that “[t]he parent, wi thout regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custody fo r the child and there is no re asonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reason able time considering the child’s age.” This Court has held that “[a] parent’s failure to partic ipate in and benefit from a service plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide a child proper care and custody.” In

re White , 303 Mich App 701, 710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

Respondent failed to comply with and/or benefit from her treat ment plan. Additionally, as reflected above, there was ev idence that respondent failed t o procure safe a nd suitable housing for the minor children, that s he could not support the children with a legal source of income, and that she failed to regularly visit with them despite the opport unity to do so. Moreover, there was the situation with the male friend who had sexually abused SM, which matter respondent failed to properly confront and addres s. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court clearly erred by finding that petitioner had pr esented clear and convincing e vidence to support the termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).

Finally, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) provides that a court may terminat e parental rights when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that “[t]her e is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the chil d will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent.” A parent’s failure to com ply with his or her service plan is evidence that the child may be harmed if returned to the parent ’s home. White , 303 Mich App at

710-711.

Again, after respondent had been made aware of the sexual assa ult allegations against the male friend, she continued to allow all three minor children to be left alone in his care. Throughout the pendency of these proceedings, respondent was or dered not to have any contact with the male friend. However, despite being cautioned by the trial court, allegations continued to surface that respondent was in communication with him. Furt her, respondent failed to comply with aspects of her treatment pla n, nor did she benefit from an y services. And respondent failed to show that she had safe and suitable housing for the minor ch ildren, nor did she complete individual therapy or progress to family therapy, so as to give her the skills and understanding necessary to protect the children. Therefore, we cannot conclu de that the trial court clearly erred by finding that petitioner had pr esented clear and convincing e vidence to support the termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).-4- With respect to the children’s best interests, we place our f ocus on the child rather than the parent. Moss , 301 Mich App at 87. The trial court may consider such factors as “the child ’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting abil ity, 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 Minors

, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (citations 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 visit ation history with the child, t he children's well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption.” White , 303 Mich App at 714.

As discussed above, respondent failed to show that she had sa fe and suitable housing for the minor children, failed to show that she could support the c hildren with a legal source of income, failed to regularly attend scheduled visitations, faile d to respond to the children’s text messages or to return their tel ephone calls, failed to complete individual therapy or to progress to family therapy, and failed to pr operly address and respond to t he sexual abuse committed by her male friend. Comparatively, the minor children’s placement wit h their paternal grandmother provided them with the stability and security that they did not have while in respondent’s care. Specifically, the grandmother helped the children catch up acad emically and begin to thrive at school, taught them discipline, took care of their health, and even helped to remedy their lack of personal hygiene. By the time of the termination hearing, the children had been out of respondent’s care for well over two years, and during that time they had limited and inconsistent contact with respondent. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent’s parent al rights was in the best int erests of the mi nor children.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Stephen L. Borrello