Opinion
No. 345746
04-18-2019
In re BRILEY/JOHNSON/ROSE, Minors.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Berrien Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 2017-000049-NA Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and SHAPIRO and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent-mother appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her four minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue to exist) and (j) (reasonable likelihood that children will be harmed if returned to parent). We affirm.
Respondent-father's parental rights were also terminated. He did not participate in the lower court proceedings.
In May 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services submitted a petition seeking removal of the children based, in part, on respondent's significant substance issues, mental health concerns, lack of employment and suitable housing. Respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations contained in the petition, and the trial court assumed jurisdiction over the children. A case service plan was created for respondent and she initially showed some compliance. However, respondent consistently testified positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines and occasionally for cocaine. Multiple attempts were made to provide respondent with inpatient substance abuse treatment, but she failed to complete a rehabilitative program. Further, while she initially benefitted from her parenting classes, the trial court found that respondent was unable to sustain her progress. The caseworker believed that respondent was sometimes under the influence of illegal substances during parenting visits. She exhibited erratic behavior and was not engaging with her children. Moreover, respondent failed to provide verification of her employment and, as of the termination hearing, she was homeless. The trial court terminated her parental rights in September 2018.
On appeal, respondent does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination. Instead, she argues only that termination was not in her children's best interests. Because she does not challenge the trial court's determination that petitioner properly established statutory grounds for termination, we may assume that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds existed. In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Further, we have reviewed the record and find no clear error regarding the statutory grounds for termination. See In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012).
Once a statutory ground for termination is established, the trial court shall order termination if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). We review the trial court's decision regarding best interests for clear error. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App at 40. In determining the child's best interests, "the court should consider a wide variety of factors that may 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." In re White, 303 Mich App at 713 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Other relevant factors include "the parent's compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent's visitation history with the child, the children's well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption." Id. at 714.
Respondent argues that the trial court was required to find by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's best interests. Respondent is incorrect; the trial court need only find that termination is in the children's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. See Moss, 301 Mich App at 90. --------
There was ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that respondent could not provide permanence and stability for her children, who had been in foster care for 15 months. Despite numerous referrals for inpatient rehabilitation, respondent failed to rectify her methamphetamine addiction. And, as the trial court found, there was no indication that she would be able to do so within a reasonable time. Further, respondent was unable to provide the children with a stable living environment because she did not have verified employment and was homeless. At the same time, the children were doing well in foster care.
Respondent argues that the trial court's best-interests finding was erroneous because some positive factors existed: she was bonded to the children, had completed a parenting class, and attended parenting time regularly. As noted, the trial court found that respondent was unable to maintain the progress she made after completing a parenting class early in this case. And, while she consistently attended parenting time, it appears that her focus and engagement also waned over time. For example, the caseworker described an instance when one of the children fell off a couch and respondent did not know which child had fallen and did not respond appropriately. The caseworker also testified that respondent was on her phone most of the time while visiting. Again, there were concerns that respondent was under the influence during some of the visits.
The trial court noted that the two older children were bonded with respondent, while the two younger children did not appear to recognize respondent as their mother. Even as to the older children, however, the existence of a parental bond is only one factor for the trial court to consider in determining the children's best interests. Given respondent's continued drug use, homelessness, and inability to provide effective parenting, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
/s/ Michael J. Riordan