Court Opinion

ID: 9691761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 05:09:22.948637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:49.217707
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                                                                      UNPUBLISHED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 BJA, MAA, Minors.                                               August 24, 2023

                                                                      No. 365239
                                                                      Clinton Circuit Court
                                                                      Family Division
                                                                      LC No. 22-030903-AY
                                                                               22-030904-AY

Before: GADOLA, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and SWARTZLE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

       The biological mother of two children and her husband petitioned the trial court to
terminate respondent’s parental rights, as the biological father of the two children, under the
Michigan Adoption Code, MCL 710.21 et seq. The trial court terminated respondent’s parental
rights under MCL 710.51(6) because respondent had amassed arrearages in child-support
payments and failed to visit or contact the children for a substantial period of time. We affirm.

        Respondent and the biological mother divorced after having two children together, and
respondent was ordered to pay $644 each month to the biological mother in child support as a
result of that divorce. In the two years leading up to the petition in this case, however, respondent
paid less than $5,000 in child-support payments, owed the biological mother between $46,000 and
$52,000 in child-support payments, and had minimal contact with the children even though he
lived “no more than eight miles” from them. Consequently, the trial court terminated respondent’s
parental rights to the children under MCL 710.51(6)(a) and (b).

       Respondent now appeals.

        “The petitioners in a stepparent adoption proceeding have the burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that termination of the noncustodial parent’s rights is warranted.” In re
NRC, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 362915); slip op at 2. Clear
and convincing evidence must lead the trier of fact to “a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of
the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as
to enable the factfinder to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise
facts in issue.” In re Martin, 450 Mich 204, 227; 538 NW2d 399 (1995) (cleaned up).

                                                 -1-
       Respondent’s parental rights were terminated under MCL 710.51(6), which reads in
relevant part:

               (6) If the parents of a child are divorced, or if the parents are unmarried but
       the father has acknowledged paternity or is a putative father who meets the
       conditions in section 39(2) of this chapter, and if a parent having custody of the
       child according to a court order subsequently marries and that parent’s spouse
       petitions to adopt the child, the court upon notice and hearing may issue an order
       terminating the rights of the other parent if both of the following occur:

               (a) The other parent, having the ability to support, or assist in supporting,
       the child, has failed or neglected to provide regular and substantial support for the
       child or if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply with
       the order, for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the petition. A child
       support order stating that support is $0.00 or that support is reserved shall be treated
       in the same manner as if no support order has been entered.

              (b) The other parent, having the ability to visit, contact, or communicate
       with the child, has regularly and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a
       period of 2 years or more before the filing of the petition.

        Under MCL 710.51(6)(a), a respondent must “substantially comply” with the child-support
order by making “a considerable quantity of the payments required by the order,” otherwise that
respondent may have their parental rights terminated. In re NRC, ___ Mich App at __; slip op at
4-5. When determining whether the requirements of MCL 710.51(6)(b) have been satisfied, a
petitioner only needs to establish that the respondent had the ability to perform any one of the three
statutorily enumerated actions—visit, contact, or communicate with the children—but did not
perform any of the actions. In re Hill, 221 Mich App 683, 694; 562 NW2d 254 (1997).

        It is undisputed that respondent and the biological mother are divorced and that the
biological mother’s husband petitioned to adopt the two children. Further, there was clear and
convincing evidence that respondent paid no more than 10% of his accumulated child-support
arrearage and had, at best, minimal contact with the two children in the two years preceding this
case. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it found that respondent had not
substantially complied with his court-ordered support obligations, MCL 710.51(6)(a), and that he
had regularly failed or neglected to visit or communicate with the children even though he lived
near them with the ability to visit or communicate, MCL 710.51(6)(b).

         Respondent argues that the trial court erred because he had good cause to explain his lack
of child-support payments as well as lack of visitation with the children. Respondent incorrectly
cites to the Michigan Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1 et seq, when arguing that petitioners needed to
demonstrate that he failed to provide support or visitation without good cause. The trial court
terminated respondent’s parental rights under the Michigan Adoption Code, which does not have
the same requirement regarding “good cause” as the Michigan Juvenile Code. Simply put,
respondent’s argument is misplaced and without merit.

                                                 -2-
       Further, respondent argues that the trial court erred by not considering the best interests of
the children when terminating his parental rights. Again, respondent incorrectly cites to the
Michigan Juvenile Code which requires the trial court to consider the best interests of the children.
Termination of parental rights under MCL 710.51(6) does not have any such requirement. See In
re Clausen, 442 Mich 648, 677-678; 502 NW2d 649 (1993); In re Hill, 221 Mich App at 696.

       The trial court did not err by not considering whether respondent had good cause and by
not considering the best interests of the children.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Michael F. Gadola
                                                              /s/ Michael J. Kelly
                                                              /s/ Brock A. Swartzle

                                                -3-