Opinion
No. 350133 No. 350134
02-18-2020
In re TROMBLEY, Minor.
If this opinion indicates that it is "FOR PUBLICATION," it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. UNPUBLISHED Delta Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 19-000418-NA Before: SAWYER, P.J., and MARKEY and STEPHENS, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In Docket No. 350133, respondent-father appeals by right the court's order terminating his parental rights to the minor child, VT, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care or custody), (i) (parental rights to a sibling terminated due to serious and chronic neglect or abuse), and (j) (reasonable likelihood of harm to child if returned to parent). In Docket No. 350134, respondent-mother appeals by right the court's order terminating her parental rights to VT under the same statutory grounds. We affirm.
Respondents' parental rights to other children have been terminated, and they have a substantial and troubling history of substance abuse, mental health issues, incarcerations, and repeated parenting failures. Both respondents, recognizing their considerable problems and selflessly wishing to do what was best for VT, entered pleas to an amended petition to terminate their parental rights and then chose not to contest the termination of their parental rights. Respondents testified that they were in no position to care for the child, that they would not be able to provide for VT's care and custody in the foreseeable future, and that the termination of their parental rights would be in VT's best interests. Counsel for respondent-mother even stated that MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (j) were "well-established." The court also heard testimony by a worker with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that supported the statutory grounds for termination and a finding that termination was in VT's best interests. On the record before us, respondents effectively consented to the termination of their parental rights, but now challenge the terminations.
Assuming that respondents are even "aggrieved" parties such that we have jurisdiction over their appeals, MCR 7.203(A), we find they have waived challenges to the termination of their parental rights. See People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (waiver is the intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right); In re Hudson, 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011) (the respondent's appellate argument challenging the statutory grounds for termination directly contradicted the respondent's plea, and she "may not assign as error on appeal something that she deemed proper in the lower court because allowing her to do so would permit respondent to harbor error as an appellate parachute").
"[O]ne may not appeal from a consent judgment, order or decree[.]" Dybata v Kistler, 140 Mich App 65, 68; 362 NW2d 891 (1985).
Moreover, regardless of the waiver, the testimony of the DHHS worker and the evidence of the prior terminations, the extensive drug abuse, the severe mental health issues, the repeated parenting failures, and the incarcerations all supported the termination of respondents' parental rights. The court did not clearly err by finding that the statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination of respondents' parental rights was in VT's best interests.
If a trial court finds that a single statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence and that it has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of a child, the court is mandated to terminate a respondent's parental rights to that child. MCL 712A.19b(3) and (5); MCR 3.977(H)(3); In re Beck, 488 Mich 6, 10-11; 793 NW2d 562 (2010); In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013); In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30, 32; 817 NW2d 111 (2011). "This Court reviews for clear error the trial court's ruling that a statutory ground for termination has been established and its ruling that termination is in the children's best interests." In re Hudson, 294 Mich App at 264; see also MCR 3.977(K). "A finding . . . is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed[.]" In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 296; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). In applying the clear error standard in parental termination cases, "regard is to be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it." In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); see also MCR 2.613(C). --------
We affirm.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens