From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Nash

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 17, 2017
No. 333715 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017)

Opinion

No. 333715

01-17-2017

In re NASH, Minors.


UNPUBLISHED Lake Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 14-001557-NA Before: MURPHY, P.J., and METER and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right an order terminating his parental rights to two minor children, a boy and a girl, based on MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) (other conditions exist that warrant termination), (g) (failure to provide proper care or custody), and (j) (risk of harm if child returned to parents). On appeal, respondent does not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, but only asserts that the trial court erred when it found that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests. We affirm.

The parental rights of the mother were also terminated. She is not a party to this appeal. --------

We review for clear error a trial court's ruling that termination of a respondent's parental rights is in a child's best interests. MCR 3.977(K); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000), abrogated in part by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 83; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court's special opportunity to observe the witnesses." In re BZ and KZ, Minors, 264 Mich App 286, 296-297; 690 NW2d 505 (2004).

The minor child—not the parent—is the focus of the best-interests stage. See In re Moss, 301 Mich App at 87. "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). In determining the best interests of the child, the trial court must consider the record as a whole. In re JK, Minor, 468 Mich 202, 211; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). The trial court may consider factors such as "the child's bond to the parent, the parent's parenting ability, the child's need for permanency, stability, finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent's home." In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 34, 41-42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012) (citations omitted). It may also consider the length of time the child was in foster care, the likelihood that the child could be returned to the parent's home in the foreseeable future, In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248-249; 824 NW2d 569 (2012), evidence that the child is not safe with the parent and is thriving in foster care, In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 141; 809 NW2d 412 (2011), "a parent's history of domestic violence, the parent's compliance with his or her case service plan, . . . and the possibility of adoption," In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 714; 846 NW2d 61 (2014).

In this case, service workers testified that respondent is not benefiting from services and the children need permanency. While the counselors involved with the children indicated that the children have, on some level, a bond with respondent, their testimony revealed that the bond is not necessarily a healthy one. The counselor for the girl testified that she continues to internalize her feelings and has "grown accustomed to [the fact] that [respondent] gets angry and that's just how her dad is." The counselor stated that, because of the girl's approach to her trauma, she was at risk of substance abuse or cutting behaviors in the future. The counselor stated that it was in the girl's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights.

The boy's counselor noted that if respondent's behavior did not change and respondent gained custody of the boy, the progress the child had made in therapy would likely be erased. The boy's counselor believed that the boy's aggressive behaviors would likely recur. The boy's counselor also testified that the child had expressed a need for permanency, and a psychologist who had spoken with the boy testified that "he is afraid of his dad when his dad is angry, and . . . he would like to be adopted." The psychologist also testified that the boy had stated, " 'I don't want to see my dad. Dad has anger problems. He hits people when he gets mad. Sometimes he gets weapons out and threatens to shoot people.' "

The boy's counselor stated that there were no alternatives to termination that would be effective in creating permanency for him. Similarly, the girl's counselor stated that a guardianship would not provide the girl with the stability she needed and would add to her stress level. In addition, the psychologist stated that while terminating respondent's parental rights is "not what I had hoped would happen in this situation, . . . I don't know how else to create long-term permanency for [the children], because I don't think that guardianships are feasible."

While the children have some bond with respondent, this was only one factor the trial court had to consider when assessing the children's best interests. Given respondent's demonstrated poor parenting ability and his failure to take sufficient advantage of the services provided and benefit from them, In re Frey, 297 Mich App at 248-249, it is clear he cannot provide the stability and permanency the children need. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the best interests of the children.

Affirmed.

/s/ William B. Murphy

/s/ Patrick M. Meter

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause


Summaries of

In re Nash

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
Jan 17, 2017
No. 333715 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017)
Case details for

In re Nash

Case Details

Full title:In re NASH, Minors.

Court:STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jan 17, 2017

Citations

No. 333715 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2017)