Opinion
No. 351419
08-13-2020
In re BENSON/BROOK, Minors.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Ingham Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 18-000750-NA Before: MURRAY, C.J., and CAVANAGH and SWARTZLE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent-mother appeals by right the trial court's October 14, 2019 order terminating her parental rights to TB and NB under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), (g) (failure to provide proper care and custody), and (j) (children would be harmed if returned to the parent). We affirm.
On May 22, 2018, the Ingham County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed neglect petitions against respondent after it was discovered during an investigation that she was living in a "red-tagged" home with no heat or hot water, and she and the two other adults in the home tested positive for methamphetamine. Subsequently, respondent entered a plea to jurisdiction, admitting to the housing and drug issues. A service plan was created that required her to attend drug screenings, receive a substance abuse assessment, and attend parenting-time visits. Respondent attended a number of her visitations, and she had a strong bond with her children.
However, over the course of this case, respondent missed over 140 drug screens and tested positive for substances 37 times, including for methamphetamine, amphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, and opioids. Respondent had four show-cause hearings because of her missed drug screens and missed parenting-time visits. She either pleaded guilty or was found guilty of being in contempt of court at each hearing. Respondent was twice ordered to participate in inpatient rehabilitation after being found guilty of violating court orders, and she successfully completed the first step of the program the second time. However, respondent relapsed in her drug usage, and she stopped attending any drug screens before the termination hearing. In June 2019, respondent married a man with an extensive criminal history who was in prison for charges associated with methamphetamine and firearms. During the pendency of this case, respondent did not secure appropriate housing and had either been homeless, in jail, or living with her mother who used drugs.
On October 14, 2019, a termination hearing was held and the trial court concluded that the statutory grounds for termination were met. The court noted that the conditions that led to adjudication—homelessness and substance abuse—continued to exist and there was no reasonable expectation that respondent would remedy these conditions in a reasonable time. Further, respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for the children and there was no reasonable expectation that she would. Moreover, there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent. Respondent did not comply with the court's orders and was not benefiting from the services provided. Respondent tested positive for many different controlled substances and failed to address her substance abuse problem despite numerous opportunities. Respondent failed to complete her psychological evaluation and failed to provide verification of a job and housing. While the children had a bond with respondent, the court noted, the children needed stability and were thriving in their foster home. Accordingly, the court terminated respondent's parental rights. This appeal followed.
Respondent argues that the trial court erred when it terminated her parental rights because a statutory ground for termination was not established by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree.
To terminate parental rights, the trial court must find at least one of the statutory grounds for termination listed in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). We review the trial court's factual findings and ultimate decision for clear error. In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). A decision is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 41 (citation omitted).
Respondent's parental rights were terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), which permit termination as follows:
(3) The court may terminate a parent's parental rights to a child if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, 1 or more of the following:
* * *
(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 court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds . . . :
(i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child's age.
* * *
(g) The parent, although, in the court's discretion, financially able to do so, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable
expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child's age.After reviewing the record evidence, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err when it terminated respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i).
* * *
(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child's parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent.
These proceedings began in May 2018, and the conditions that led to adjudication were respondent's lack of appropriate housing and substance abuse. Respondent's case service plan included drug screens which she repeatedly failed to complete as ordered. When respondent did complete drug screens, she often tested positive for several different controlled substances. That is, respondent failed to appear at about 140 drug screens and tested positive for controlled substances 37 times. The DHHS caseworker facilitated respondent's admission to an inpatient drug rehabilitation facility in May 2019 and respondent left the facility after five days. Shortly thereafter, respondent again tested positive for methamphetamine. Nevertheless, respondent stated that she did not want another referral for substance abuse treatment because she did not feel that she needed such treatment. Although respondent did receive additional substance abuse treatment, she was unsuccessful in overcoming her substance abuse issue. In fact, she was discharged from substance abuse classes for nonattendance and, after completing the first step of inpatient treatment in July 2019, respondent was released but then tested positive for controlled substances. At the time of the termination trial—in October 2019—when the return of her children was in jeopardy, respondent still was not participating in the court-ordered drug testing.
Further, throughout these proceedings respondent did not secure appropriate housing. She was either homeless, in jail, or living with her mother who also had a substance abuse problem. While respondent argues on appeal that she simply needed more time to be in full compliance with her case service plan, her argument is unpersuasive. In the approximately 16 months that this matter was pending, respondent made essentially no progress with her substance abuse problem or housing issue, despite the reasonable efforts of DHHS to reunify respondent with her children. See MCL 712A.19a(2). Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err by concluding that the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children's ages. Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, we need not address the other two statutory grounds. See In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 40.
Respondent also argues that the court committed clear error in finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interests. We disagree.
Before terminating parental rights, the trial court must determine that termination is in the best interests of the children by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). This Court reviews for clear error the trial court's determination regarding the children's best interests. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). In making that determination, the court may consider a variety of factors, including the parent's parenting ability, the child's age and bond to the parent, and the child's need for permanency, stability, and finality. See In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 41-42; In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 141-142; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). The parent's history of domestic violence, compliance with her case service plan, and visitation history with the child may also be considered by the trial court, as well as the children's well-being while in care. In re White, 303 Mich App at 714.
Respondent argues that the trial court did not give adequate weight to her bond with the children before terminating her parental rights. But her bond with the children is only one factor that the trial court may consider with making its best-interests determination. The children also have a need for a safe and satisfactory home environment which respondent failed to prove that she could provide for the children. Respondent failed to comply with her case service plan, failed to prove that she overcame her substance abuse problem, missed several visitations with the children, and failed to show that she could provide permanency and long-term stability to the children. Respondent was no closer to having the children return home at the end of these proceedings than she was when they were removed from her care. Further, the children were in a foster home where there was no substance abuse concern, and the children were thriving—even receiving necessary treatment for their past trauma. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not clearly err when it concluded that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle