Opinion
No. 346073
05-14-2019
In re FISH, Minors.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 15-519105-NA Before: MURRAY, C.J., and JANSEN and RIORDAN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his two minor two children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children's mother, but she has not appealed that decision and is not a party to this appeal. --------
I. BACKGROUND
Respondent and the children's mother have a history with Child Protective Services (CPS) dating back to 2015, involving mostly issues of substance abuse and domestic violence. The instant proceeding was initiated in February 2017, when petitioner filed a petition requesting that the court exercise jurisdiction over the children and that it terminate respondent's and the mother's parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing. The petition included allegations of domestic violence, drug use, and unsafe conditions in the family home. In addition, respondent and the mother both had criminal histories and outstanding warrants. When the children were removed, one child had a full diaper with "a tan worm with red spots" inside. Neither child was wearing shoes or socks. Respondent and the mother both appeared under the influence of an unknown narcotic and a "meth plate" was found in the home.
In May 2017, respondent and the mother each entered a no-contest plea to enable the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over the children. Following a hearing in June 2017, the trial court found that a statutory ground for termination existed, but found that termination of respondent's and the mother's parental rights was not in the children's best interests. The court ordered that respondent and the mother be given an opportunity to participate in reunification services and a treatment plan was established. In July 2018, petitioner filed a supplemental petition requesting termination of respondent's and the mother's parental rights. The petition alleged that respondent and the mother both failed to participate in or benefit from services. After conducting a two-day hearing, the trial court granted the petition and terminated respondent's parental rights to the minor children in September 2018. This appeal followed.
II. APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
Respondent argues on appeal that the trial court erred by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence, and by finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. We disagree.
Petitioner has the burden of proving a statutory ground for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). "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 parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be made." MCL 712A.19b(5). This Court reviews the trial court's factual findings for clear error. MCR 3.977(K); In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Deference must be accorded to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses before it. In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61, 65; 472 NW2d 38 (1991).
The trial court terminated respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), which permit termination under the following circumstances:
(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 either of the following:
(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.
* * *
(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.Termination of parental rights need only be supported by a single statutory ground. In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 431; 871 NW2d 868 (2015).
The evidence supported termination of respondent's parental rights under subsection (c)(i). The trial court entered the initial dispositional order in June 2017, more than a year before the termination hearing. The evidence clearly showed that respondent had not made any progress in addressing the reasons why the children were removed from his care. The children were removed because respondent and the mother were unable to provide a safe and stable home for the children. At the time of removal, they had a home, but it was not clean or safe, and there was domestic violence and drug abuse in the home. More than a year later, respondent no longer had a home and was living in shelters. He attended parenting classes, but witnesses testified that he did not benefit from the classes. Further, he made no progress in addressing his substance abuse, which was a principal barrier to reunification. He failed to attend most of his scheduled drug screens and usually tested positive for illegal substances when he did attend. He also failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program. In addition, respondent never obtained stable employment. After more than a year, respondent had not made any significant progress toward rectifying the conditions that led to the children's removal. At the time of the termination hearing, he remained unemployed, lacked housing, had been dismissed from treatment programs, and was continuing to test positive for illegal substances. The trial court did not clearly err by finding that the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist. Further, considering respondent's lack of progress after more than a year, there was no reasonable likelihood that he would be able to rectify the conditions within a reasonable time considering the children's ages.
The evidence also supported termination of respondent's parental rights under subsection (g). A parent's failure to participate in and benefit from a treatment plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide proper care and custody of a child. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). As indicated, respondent made no significant progress in addressing the requirements of his treatment plan. After selling his home in April 2018, respondent and the mother squandered the sale proceeds and, within months, were homeless. Respondent's ongoing substance abuse problem also remained unresolved. Clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court's decision to terminate respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
Similarly, given respondent's history of drug abuse and domestic violence, both of which affected his ability to provide a safe and stable home for the children and remained unresolved after more than a year, there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent's home. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the evidence also supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
Respondent also argues that termination of his parental rights was not in the children's best interests. Whether termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). In deciding a child's best interests, the court may consider a variety of factors, including the child's bond with the parent, the parent's parenting abilities, and the child's need for permanency, stability, and finality. In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). The court may also consider the advantages of an alternative home for the child. In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630, 634-635; 776 NW2d 415 (2009).
Respondent argues that termination of his parental rights was not in the children's best interests because he had a strong bond with the children. In support of this argument, he relies on evidence indicating that the children cried when he left at the end of visits. But the testimony also indicated that respondent acted inappropriately at visits because he would become emotional and cry at the end of visits, which in turn caused the children distress. While respondent otherwise appropriately interacted with the children during visits, his visits were too infrequent to maintain a strong bond with them.
The evidence otherwise showed that the children were living in a stable placement with their grandmother, who was interested in planning for their futures and committed to adopting them. In contrast, respondent was homeless, did not have stable employment, and had not overcome his substance abuse problem. Despite an opportunity to participate in services for more than a year, he agreed that he was not in a position to provide a safe and stable home for the children. Although he hoped to be ready in another six months, there was no reasonable basis for believing that he was on the path to recovery and would be in a position to care for the children at any time in the near future. The children should not have to wait indefinitely for the stability they need. The trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests.
III. CONCLUSION
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Michael J. Riordan