From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hill/

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Oct 21, 2021
No. 357188 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2021)

Opinion

357188

10-21-2021

In re HILL/ALEXANDER, Minors.


UNPUBLISHED

Berrien Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2019-000093-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 four minor children, arguing that the trial court erred in evaluating the best interests of two of those children placed with relatives by failing to consider their individual circumstances, including their prospects for long-term relative placement under a guardianship. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we vacate the termination order with respect to those two children only, MA and AA, and remand this case to the trial court for further findings regarding their best interests.

"Once a statutory ground for termination has been proven, the trial court must find that termination is in the child's best interests before it can terminate parental rights." In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich.App. 35, 40; 823 N.W.2d 144 (2012). "[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence." In re Moss, 301 Mich.App. 76, 90; 836 N.W.2d 182 (2013). This Court reviews the trial court's ruling that termination is in the child's best interests for clear error. In re Medina, 317 Mich.App. 219, 226; 894 N.W.2d 653 (2016). "A trial court's decision is clearly erroneous if although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich.App. at 41 (quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).

"To determine whether termination of parental rights is in a 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. 701, 713; 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The trial court may also consider a parent's history of domestic violence, 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. "[T]he focus at the best-interest stage has always been on the child, not the parent." In re Moss, 301 Mich.App. at 87.

The trial court is required to consider the best interests of each child individually. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich.App. at 42. However, it is not necessary for the trial court to make "redundant factual findings concerning each child's best interests." In re White, 303 Mich.App. at 716. Instead, "if the best interests of the individual children significantly differ, the trial court should address those differences when making its determination of the children's best interests." Id. at 715.

Further, a child's placement with relatives weighs against termination. In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich.App. at 43. "Although the trial court may terminate parental rights in lieu of placement with relatives if it finds that termination is in the child's best interests, the fact that the children are in the care of a relative at the time of the termination hearing is an explicit factor to consider in determining whether termination was in the children's best interests." Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). "A trial court's failure to explicitly address whether termination is appropriate in light of the children's placement with relatives renders the factual record inadequate to make a best-interest determination and requires reversal." Id.

In this case, in making its best-interest determination, the trial court considered the children's need for permanence, and the length of time the children had been in care, along with respondent's lack of progress, failure to comply with his case-service plan, and lack of commitment to the children. But the court did not mention the children's individual needs. This was not itself clear error, however, because, although the children had different medical and supervisory needs, those differences did not play a significant role in the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests. Instead, the trial court's primary reason for terminating respondent's parental rights was the children's need for permanence and respondent's lack of commitment and progress. The children's needs did not significantly differ with respect to these factors: the children were all in care for the same length of time and needed permanence and stability.

To the extent that respondent-father argues generally that the trial court failed to consider "any factors, or take any testimony," this assertion is unsupported by the record. The trial court conducted a termination hearing, testimony was taken, and it considered several factors in its best-interests determination.

However, the trial court clearly erred in failing to expressly address the fact that the two children, MA and AA, were then living with relatives. While there was evidence on the record during each phase of the proceedings regarding the children's placements, the trial court did not mention that two were placed with relatives when weighing factors for or against termination. Because the trial court was required to explicitly address the children's placement with relatives at the time of the termination hearing, we conclude that the trial court clearly erred by failing to do so. Therefore, we vacate the trial court's termination order with respect to those two children and remand this case to the trial court for further fact-finding regarding their best interests.

The termination order is vacated as to MA and AA only, and this case is remanded for the trial court to make factual findings regarding the best interests of these two children. We retain jurisdiction.

ORDER

Pursuant to the opinion issued concurrently with this order, this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of this Court. We retain jurisdiction.

Proceedings on remand in this matter shall commence within 28 days of the Clerk's certification of this order, and they shall be given priority on remand until they are concluded. As stated in the accompanying opinion, we vacate the termination order with respect to MA and AA only, and remand this case for further findings regarding their best interests. The proceedings on remand are limited to this issue.

The parties shall promptly file with this Court a copy of all papers filed on remand. Within seven days after entry, appellant shall file with this Court copies of all orders entered on remand.

The transcript of all proceedings on remand shall be prepared and filed within 21 days after completion of the proceedings.


Summaries of

In re Hill/

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Oct 21, 2021
No. 357188 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2021)
Case details for

In re Hill/

Case Details

Full title:In re HILL/ALEXANDER, Minors.

Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Date published: Oct 21, 2021

Citations

No. 357188 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2021)