Court Opinion

ID: 9950900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 05:06:37.152346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:26.540673
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                                                                       UNPUBLISHED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 GORDON/ROBINSON/COHOON, Minors.                                  March 14, 2024

                                                                       No. 366125; 366175
                                                                       Bay Circuit Court
                                                                       Family Division
                                                                       LC No. 21-013176-NA

Before: PATEL, P.J., and RICK and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       Respondent-mother appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children, JG, TG, ZG, HR, and SC, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions leading to
adjudication continue to exist), (c)(ii) (failure to rectify other conditions), (g) (failure to provide
proper care and custody), and (j) (likelihood of harm if returned to parent). We affirm.

                                  I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

      This case arises out of a petition for temporary custody filed by the Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS). In the petition, DHHS stated:

               [Mother] gave birth to [SC] on 3/23/21. [SC] was positive for
       Amphetamines and methamphetamines. [SC] was born at 32 weeks and is in the
       NICU. [Mother] has four other children in her care, [JG], [TG], [ZG], and [HR].
       Forensic interviews were completed with [ZG] and [TG] and they disclosed that
       they get locked in their rooms and had to climb out the window to go to the
       bathroom. [TG] further disclosed that he saw [SC’s father] tie [JG] to the bed and
       she had to eat through the rope to break free. [ZG] reports that [SC’s father] hurts
       him by spanking him and has left bruises on him. He further stated that [SC’s
       father] hurt his ankle because he snuck out of the home. [ZG] and [TG] are
       currently at their [m]aternal grandfathers [sic] home. The [m]aternal grandfather
       sexually abused [mother] when she was a child.

DHHS asked the court to take temporary jurisdiction over the children. A preliminary hearing was
held the following day. The children had been temporarily removed from mother’s care pending
a court ruling on the petition. Mother waived a finding of probable cause at the hearing, and the

                                                 -1-
court authorized the petition. The trial court heard suggestions for relative placements for the
children, but determined that it would be best for them to be placed in foster care at that time. At
a later pretrial hearing, the referee noted that DHHS had sent documentation to relatives regarding
placement and that home studies would need to be completed. In the meantime, the three older
children and the two younger children had been placed in separate foster homes because there were
no placements available with room to house all five children.

       A two-day adjudication hearing was held on July 28, 2021, and August 2, 2021. Mother
pleaded no contest to the jurisdictional grounds alleged in the petition. A case service plan (CSP)
was put in place, and mother was ordered to attend parenting time, participate in substance abuse
treatment, mental health treatment, parenting classes, and find stable employment and housing.

        A series of dispositional review hearings took place between August 2021 and
August 2022. At an August 2021 hearing, a foster care case manager testified that mother was not
consistently attending parenting time visits. When she did attend visits, her behavior was mostly
appropriate, although the case manager indicated that sometimes mother did not want to hold HR
or comfort her. The case manager indicated that she was working with mother to help her manage
the children’s needs. DHHS was also working with mother to get her engaged with substance
abuse and mental health treatment. Regarding relative placement, another foster care case manager
indicated that she was performing background checks on relatives who had been suggested as
potential placements for the children. Both workers recommended that the children remain in their
current placements and that mother continue to follow her CSP.

        Two months later, at a November 2021 review hearing, a foster care worker testified that
the children were doing well in their foster care placements, had been going to school regularly,
and were attending therapy. The foster care worker noted that mother had not complied with her
CSP. She continued to test positive for methamphetamines, had not obtained a psychological
evaluation, and had missed at least 50% of her parenting time visits. Barriers to reunification
remained, including “substance abuse, parenting skills, emotional stability, housing, employment,
[and] domestic relations[.]” The trial court continued its prior orders regarding mother’s CSP and
indicated that reunification remained the goal.

         At a review and permanency planning hearing held on February 18, 2022, a foster care
worker indicated that all of the children were thriving in their foster placements. Mother continued
to fail to meet the terms of the CSP. Mother’s attendance at parenting time visits was inconsistent.
Her substance abuse issues were not under control and she admitted to using drugs, but stated that
she wanted to be sober. Mother was not consistently engaged in any mental health treatment and
remained unemployed. She also indicated that she wanted to co-parent with one of the children’s
fathers who had been violent toward her in the past. Nevertheless, the children’s foster care worker
continued to support the goal of reunifying mother with the children, provided that she made quick
progress toward adhering to the CSP.

         Dispositional review hearings were again held in May and August 2022. Mother continued
to test positive for methamphetamines, and while she had completed a psychological evaluation,
she had not enrolled in mental health treatment. By the time the August 2022 hearing was held,
relations between mother and the children during parenting time had completely deteriorated; the
children began crying during visits, and Children’s Protective Services (CPS) workers believed

                                                -2-
that continuing the visits would be harmful to the children. Termination of mother’s parental rights
was recommended.

        A supplemental petition for termination of mother’s parental rights was filed on
November 1, 2022, stating that statutory grounds supporting termination existed under
MCL 712a.19b(3)(c)(i), (ii), (g), and (j). Mother’s parenting time visits were subsequently
suspended at a review hearing held on November 8, 2022, as the visits were becoming increasingly
harmful for the children. Trial on the petition began January 26, 2023. Testimony from various
foster care and CPS workers indicated that mother had not complied with her CSP, tested positive
for methamphetamines nearly the entire time that the children were in foster care, and could not
manage five children at once during parenting time, despite having a bond with them.

        Relevant to this appeal, a foster care case manager indicated that the children’s maternal
grandmother, who had recently moved from Michigan to Georgia, had expressed interest in
fostering the children prior to the filing of the termination petition. CPS had not completed an
investigation into whether her home would be an appropriate placement because she lived in
Georgia. At the time, the supplemental petition for termination had not yet been filed, and
reunification between mother and the children was the goal. It was DHHS’s opinion that placing
the children with relatives out-of-state would not be conducive to meeting that goal.

        On the second day of trial, mother testified that she believed a guardianship with the
children’s grandmother would be appropriate as long as the children’s grandparents continued
living in Georgia, where they were staying with mother’s sister. Mother conceded that both of her
parents had struggled with substance use issues as recently as 2021, but stated that they were doing
better in Georgia. She denied stating that her father, who would also be living on the Georgia
property, had sexually abused her as a child, although the initial petition in this case stated
otherwise. A case manager again testified that it was DHHS’s policy not to consider out-of-state
placements until after the parents’ rights had been terminated, in order to prevent moving the
children back and forth unnecessarily. She also testified that guardianship in Georgia was not
considered with any seriousness because at one point, mother told her that she did not want the
children to go live with their grandmother in Georgia.

       The children’s maternal grandmother testified on the third day of the trial, stating that she
was willing to have the children come live with her in Georgia. At that time, she and her husband
lived with mother’s sister in a mobile home on a parcel of land with several properties on it. She
explained that she had asked to foster the children in March 2022, after the children had already
been placed in foster care for approximately a year, but said that DHHS never followed up with
her regarding her request. Regarding the viability of long-term guardianship, another foster care
worker explained that such guardianships were not recommend in cases where the children would
remain in contact with a parent who continued to be inconsistent and unstable. DHHS’s opinion
was that there was no viable option for guardianship in this case because mother was not a stable
presence in the children’s lives.

        On May 1, 2023, the court issued its final opinion. The court found that DHHS made
reasonable efforts toward reunification prior to filing the supplemental petition for termination.
The court found that mother made no progress managing her substance abuse or mental health
issues, had failed to maintain stable employment and appropriate housing, had missed 97 of 218

                                                -3-
parenting time visits, and had shown up late for 24 additional visits. The court thus found that
statutory grounds for termination of mother’s parental rights existed under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j).

        The court acknowledged that mother had requested that the children be placed under
guardianship with her parents, who were living in Georgia, and that her parents were willing to
enter into a guardianship until mother could achieve reunification with the children. The trial court
declined to place the children under guardianship, noting that the children had already been in
foster care for 550 days since the filing of the original petition, with no apparent improvement in
the conditions that led to adjudication. The court further explained:

        Mother and grandmother both testified that they would be, that grandmother or
        grandparents would be suitable and willing to take the children until such time,
        mom, mother could overcome her barriers.

                At the removal of the children mother was asked if there were any suitable
        relatives to take care, to take her children into care and mother did not provide any
        names. Mother went even further than that. When asked about her parents she
        stated she did not want her children to go to her parents because they were substance
        abuse users. When asked about this at the termination trial mother stated since they
        moved to Georgia they no longer use substances. She felt that as long as her parents
        lived in Georgia and on her sister’s property that the children would be safe.

                The Court does not believe that this alternative would achieve proper care
        and custody. The statute is very clear when requesting placement with a relative it
        needs to be done in a certain time period at the beginning of the case and not at the
        tail end of a case when it’s clear mother cannot overcome her barriers.

The court reasoned that placing the children under guardianship in the circumstances presented
would not afford them the stability and permanency they deserved. The court found that
termination of mother’s parental rights was in each child’s best interests. This appeal followed.

                                           II. ANALYSIS

       Mother argues that the trial court erred by declining to place the children in a guardianship
with her parents in Georgia. We disagree.

         There is no dispute that statutory grounds for termination were established in this case.
Once a statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence,
the trial court must find that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests before it
can terminate parental rights. In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012).
Whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). This
Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s finding that termination of parental rights is in a child’s
best interests. In re Jones, 286 Mich App 126, 129; 777 NW2d 728 (2009).

       “If 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, the court shall order termination of

                                                  -4-
parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be
made.” MCL 712A.19b(5). When evaluating whether termination is in a child’s best interests,
“[t]he trial court should weigh all the evidence available to determine the children’s best interests.”
In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014) (citation omitted). Factors to be
considered in making the determination include “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.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial court
may also consider the child’s wellbeing while in care and the possibility of adoption. Id. at 714
(citation omitted). At the best-interests stage, the court’s focus must be on the child and not the
parent. In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 87. A trial court must consider each child’s best interests.
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 42. However, a trial court need not, make “individual” and
“redundant factual findings” if the children’s interests do not significantly differ. In re White, 303
Mich App at 715-716.

        Initially, mother notes that DHHS had a “responsibility to expend reasonable efforts to
provide services to secure reunification,” In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248; 824 NW2d 569
(2012), including a duty to investigate potential relative placements for the children, prior to the
filing of the supplemental petition for termination of parental rights. See MCL 722.954a. She
faults DHHS for failing to investigate whether it would have been appropriate to place the children
in foster care with her parents in Georgia while the proceedings were ongoing. In general, under
MCL 722.954a(2),

               (2) Upon removal, as part of a child’s initial case service plan . . . the
       supervising agency must, within 30 days, identify, locate, notify, and consult with
       relatives to determine placement with a fit and appropriate relative who would meet
       the child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs. Preference shall be
       given to an adult related to the child within the fifth degree by blood, marriage, or
       adoption provided the relative meets all relevant state child protection standards.
       The department may make an exception to this preference only if good cause is
       shown. As used in this section, “good cause” means any of the following:

              (a) A request by 1 or both of the child’s parents to deviate from this
       preference.

              (b) The child’s request, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to
       understand the decision that is being made.

               (c) The presence of a sibling attachment that can be maintained through a
       particular placement.

              (d) The child’s physical, mental, or emotional needs, such as specialized
       treatment services that may be unavailable in the community where families who
       meet the placement preferences live.

             (e) The distance between the child’s home and the proposed family
       placement would frustrate the reunification goal or otherwise impede permanency.
       [Emphasis added; see also the Children’s Foster Care Manual, FOM 722-03, pp 2-

                                                 -5-
       4 (discussing standard procedures for evaluating and placing children with
       relatives).]

While a relative placement should ordinarily be considered and prioritized over placement in foster
care, DHHS showed good cause for declining to do so here. First, mother indicated that she would
prefer the children not be placed with her parents in Georgia because her parents also struggled
with substance abuse issues as recently as 2021. Additionally, at a review and permanency
planning hearing, a CPS worker explained that DHHS considered the option of placing the children
with mother’s parents, but decided against it because it would be difficult for the children to
maintain a bond with their mother if they were moved out of state. Moreover, the record indicates
that the children had already been in foster care for approximately a year before their grandmother
sought to have them placed with her in Georgia, and were doing well in their placements. Under
the circumstances, it would have been detrimental to the children to uproot them from their foster
placements and send them out-of-state to live with a relative. Thus, good cause for declining to
place the children with relatives existed under MCL 722.954a(2)(a) and (e).

        Mother also argues that the trial court should have placed the children under guardianship
instead of terminating her parental rights. Generally, “guardianships are one of a few options
available to a court when it determines that termination of parental rights is not in the best interests
of the minor child.” In re Prepodnik, 337 Mich App 238, 243; 975 NW2d 66 (2021). Put
differently, “the appointment of a guardian is only appropriate after the court has made a finding
that the child cannot be safely returned to the home, yet initiating termination of parental rights is
clearly not in the child’s best interests.” In re TK, 306 Mich App at 707. Guardianships are largely
only appropriate where “an ongoing relationship with [the parent]—rather than termination—is in
the children’s best interests.” In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 169; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). Here, the
prospect of placing the children under guardianship was not raised until after the supplemental
petition to terminate mother’s parental rights was filed, and the trial court ultimately found that
termination was in the children’s best interests. This was so because the court believed that
mother’s continued substance abuse, housing and economic instability, and inability to adequately
parent the children would continuously harm them. The court thus concluded that the stability and
security of a permanent adoptive placement with the children’s respective foster families would
be more appropriate than continuing mother’s unstable relationship with the children.

        We agree with the trial court’s assessment. Mother has made no significant progress
toward reunification. The record shows that she made little to no progress to address her substance
abuse and mental health issues, her poor domestic relationships, or her ability to maintain a stable
job and housing over the course of the 500-plus days that the children were in foster care.1 Had
she demonstrated a willingness to fix these issues and provide a stable and loving home for the
children at any point in the proceedings, perhaps a guardianship would have been an appropriate
alternative to termination. But as it stands, allowing mother’s relationship with the children to
continue would likely only lead to more emotional and mental distress for them. The children
deserve stability and permanency, which mother has simply not shown she can provide in a

1
  Notably, this was the children’s second time in foster care, so mother was familiar with the
expectations that the court and her CSP placed upon her.

                                                  -6-
reasonable amount of time, given the ages of these children. Accordingly, the trial court did not
err by finding that terminating mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, and that
a guardianship would not have been appropriate here.

       Affirmed.

                                                               /s/ Sima G. Patel
                                                               /s/ Michelle M. Rick
                                                               /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

                                                 -7-