From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Grier

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jul 18, 2017
No. 336141 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2017)

Opinion

No. 336141

07-18-2017

In re GRIER, Minors.


UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 03-418776-NA Before: GADOLA, P.J., and METER and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Respondent-father appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to two minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). We affirm.

The trial court obtained jurisdiction over the children in November 2014. At that time, the court terminated the parental rights of the children's mother due to long-term mental health issues, but declined a request to terminate respondent-father's parental rights. Respondent-father was employed as a long-distance truck driver. Because of his employment, he had not been consistently involved in the children's lives. However, he expressed concern for the children's welfare and an interest in planning for them, and the trial court found that a clinic report was largely favorable to respondent-father. In addition, past reunification services had focused on the mother. The trial court decided that respondent-father should be afforded an opportunity to participate in reunification services.

The principal issue in the case concerned respondent-father's ability and willingness to make lifestyle changes to his long-time employment as a long-distance truck driver and place himself in a position to be able to provide proper care and custody for his children, which included obtaining stable and suitable housing for himself and the children. Respondent-father expressed his intentions to obtain housing and local employment. Although he participated in counseling and parenting classes, and satisfied those requirements of his treatment plan, he never succeeded in obtaining housing or local employment, and he continued working in his profession as a long-distance truck driver, which required his absence for extended periods.

In July 2016, petitioner filed a supplemental petition requesting termination of respondent-father's parental rights. Respondent-father stipulated to the existence of a statutory ground for termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i) due to his failure to obtain and provide stable housing for the children. Following a best-interests hearing, the trial court found that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in the children's best interests, in order to provide them with the permanence and stability they required. Respondent now challenges that decision.

Once a statutory ground for termination is established, the trial court must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests. "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). Whether termination is in a child's best interests is determined by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). We review the trial court's best-interests decision for clear error. MCR 3.977(K); In re Jones, 286 Mich App 126, 129; 777 NW2d 728 (2009). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there may be evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61, 65; 472 NW2d 38 (1991). Deference must be accorded to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses before it. Id.

The court may consider a variety of factors when deciding a child's best interests, including the child's bond to 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 trial 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).

The trial court acknowledged that this was a difficult case because respondent-father had a good relationship with the children and he had completed all elements of his treatment plan except for obtaining suitable housing and providing a stable home for the children. His employment as a long-distance truck driver prevented him from being with the children on a regular basis. Although respondent-father repeatedly expressed his intentions to obtain local employment and suitable housing for himself and the children, the children remained in foster care for almost two years without respondent-father making any progress in achieving these goals. Moreover, respondent-father had been employed as a long-distance truck driver for almost 30 years and the most recent clinic evaluation concluded that he "has presented as persistently unmotivated to make the necessary lifestyle changes that would allow him to provide for his children." The caseworker testified that the past two years had been difficult for the children, who were in therapy and in need of permanence and stability.

Although respondent-father offered a cousin as a possible guardian for the children, the children had been in foster care for almost two years before respondent-father first discussed this plan with his cousin. The cousin testified at the best-interests hearing that she and respondent-father "started discussing" the details of the plan that very morning. Moreover, the cousin admitted that the children did not really know her and that she would require financial assistance to care for the children. Under all the circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the guardianship option was not in the children's best interests.

She answered, "No, I don't," when asked, "Do you know anything about [the children]? Where they are currently?"

Although respondent-father was making child-support payments, he had a substantial arrearage. The children's attorney elicited that it would take a minimum of another six months for the cousin to become a licensed foster parent and then work toward obtaining guardianship funding. --------

While respondent-father emphasizes that he had a bond with his children, he was unable to meet their basic need of a stable and suitable home. Respondent-father was afforded plenty of chances to show that he could make the necessary lifestyle changes to allow him to care for the children, but he was either unwilling or unable to do so. Conversely, the children were doing well in their foster placement, which was meeting all of their needs, and the foster parent was interested in adopting them.

For these reasons, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent-father's parental rights was in the children's best interests.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola

/s/ Patrick M. Meter

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood


Summaries of

In re Grier

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jul 18, 2017
No. 336141 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2017)
Case details for

In re Grier

Case Details

Full title:In re GRIER, Minors.

Court:STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jul 18, 2017

Citations

No. 336141 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2017)