Opinion
SC: 160235 COA: 347045
11-15-2019
IN RE AFFLECK/KUTZLEB/SIMPSON, Minors.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals addressing the trial court’s best-interest determinations, and we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for reconsideration of whether terminating respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of each child. MCL 712A.19b(5). Petitioner did not consider recommending a guardianship for KPA and BEK 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 KPA and BEK as part of its best-interest determinations without regard to a generalized policy disfavoring guardianship for children under the age of 10. See In re Timon , 501 Mich. 867, 867, 901 N.W.2d 398 (2017) ("On remand, the trial court shall make an individualized determination as to whether terminating respondent’s parental rights is in the best interests of respondent’s youngest child without regard to a generalized policy disfavoring guardianship for children under the age of 14."). In addition, as part of its best-interest determinations, the court shall consider the sibling relationships, although the court shall decide the best interests of each child individually. See In re Olive/Metts Minors , 297 Mich. App. 35, 42, 823 N.W.2d 144 (2012). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court.