Court Opinion

ID: 9376577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 06:05:23.722069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.536703
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

                                                                      UNPUBLISHED
In re M. M. MATTHEWS, Minor.                                          March 2, 2023

                                                                      No. 361786
                                                                      Wayne Circuit Court
                                                                      Family Division
                                                                      LC No. 2013-514179-NA

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and MURRAY and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Children’s Protective Services temporarily removed the child from respondent’s care after
it was alleged that respondent could not provide a suitable home for the child. The child also tested
positive for opiates when she was born, and respondent tested positive for cocaine and heroin use.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights to the child, and respondent now appeals
that the termination was not in the best interest of the child. We affirm.

        The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provided a parenting treatment
plan for respondent that included completing parenting classes, engaging with individual therapy
for substance abuse, participating in psychological and psychiatric evaluations, performing weekly
drug screenings, maintaining a stable income and suitable housing, and attending
Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Over the two-year pendency of this case, DHHS
referred respondent to several programs to help him complete his parenting treatment plan. This
included referrals to several programs, as well as bus cards and ride-sharing cards to help him
travel to the referred programs. Nevertheless, respondent did not consistently complete his weekly
drugs screens, and he did not consistently attend the other referred services except for the parenting
classes which he was able to successfully complete.

       Additionally, respondent was offered 138 parenting-time visits with the child and he
missed 83 of those visits. In the parenting-time visits that he did attend, it was reported that
respondent did not form a bond with the child and that the child recognized her maternal
grandmother as the parent because the child had been placed with her maternal grandmother and
her four siblings during the pendency of the case.

                                                 -1-
        The trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence to support termination
of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712a.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Additionally, the trial
court found that termination was in the best interests of the child:

               And then on the best interest issue, yes the child is with a relative, and I
       consider that, and normally, that does weigh against termination, but we don’t have
       parents who are very actively involved in the child’s life. The testimony was that
       less than 50 percent of the time the parent were visiting and the child doesn’t
       recognize them as her parents. I believe at one time there was testimony that she
       called them by their first name. She calls mother, the person she recognizes as her
       mother is [the maternal grandmother]. [The maternal grandmother] has already
       adopted I believe it was four or five siblings. They have been raised in her home.
       She for all intents and purposes has taken on the role of mother for this child and
       her actual biological parents have failed to do so.

               So under these particular circumstances, I find that it would be in the child’s
       best interest to terminate all parental rights. My recommendation is that the child
       is committed to MCI for adoption, planning and placement.

        Respondent now appeals, arguing that the termination of his parental rights was not in the
best interest of the child.

        “Once a statutory ground for termination has been proven, the trial court must find that
termination is in the child’s best interests before it can terminate parental rights.” In re Olive/Metts
Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). “[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). The trial court’s ruling regarding best
interests is reviewed for clear error. In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406, 408; 890 NW2d 676
(2016). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court’s special
opportunity to observe the witnesses.” Moss, 301 Mich App at 80.

        Respondent first argues that the trial court erred because it did not consider a guardianship
for the child since the child was placed with a relative, and he relies on our Supreme Court’s order
in In re Affleck/Kutzleb/Simpson, 505 Mich 858; 935 NW2d 316 (2019) in which our Supreme
Court stated:

       Petitioner did not consider recommending a guardianship for [the children] with
       respondent’s mother because of a purported departmental policy against
       recommending guardianship for children under the age of 10. Absent contrary
       statutory language, such a generalized policy is inappropriate. On remand, the trial
       court shall address whether guardianship is appropriate for [the children] as part of
       its best-interst determinations without regard to a generalized policy disfavoring
       guardianship for children under the age of 10. [emphasis added]

      Respondent’s argument, however, is misplaced because guardianship was never
contemplated given that DHHS recommended reunification throughout the majority of the case.

                                                  -2-
Additionally, there is no indication that DHHS relied on a “generalized policy against
guardianships,” and the trial court considered the relative placement, the child’s age, the child’s
need for permanency, and that respondent was not actively involved in the child’s life when
determining whether adoption was in the child’s best interests.

        Next, respondent argues that DHHS did not make reasonable efforts to reunify him with
the child. The record demonstrates, however, that respondent was offered bus tickets and a ride-
share card to help him attend his appointments. Respondent did not consistently participate in any
drug-testing after testing positive for cocaine and heroin, and he did not consistently attend his
parenting-time visits. While DHHS “has a responsibility to expend reasonable efforts to provide
services to secure reunification, there exists a commensurate responsibility on the part of
respondents to participate in the services that are offered.” In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248;
824 NW2d 569 (2012).

        Furthermore, the child was in a loving foster home with her maternal grandmother and her
four siblings. She had been in that home for more than two years after being removed from
respondent’s care. Within that two-year period, respondent did not demonstrate that he could
provide the child with permanency and continuity given that he did not consistently engage with
his parenting treatment plan or his parenting-time visits with the child. The child’s need for
permanency, stability, and finality to this case support terminating respondent’s parental rights so
that she may be adopted by her maternal grandmother. Thus, we are not left with a definite and
firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake when terminating respondent’s parental rights.

       Affirmed.

                                                             /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
                                                             /s/ Christopher M. Murray
                                                             /s/ Brock A. Swartzle

                                                -3-