Background
The child was born in October 2024 with multiple controlled substances in his system and remained hospitalized for more than six weeks while being treated for withdrawal symptoms. The mother admitted that she had struggled with drug addiction for more than a decade, was actively using cocaine and heroin, had not completed substance-abuse treatment, lacked stable housing and employment, and had received no prenatal care. Her parental rights to another child had previously been terminated because of substance abuse, untreated mental-health issues, and failure to complete services.
The Department of Health and Human Services sought removal and termination. The child was placed with his maternal grandparents, who also had custody of his half sibling. The mother repeatedly failed to appear in court, could not generally be located, provided no verified support, and did not visit the child after his placement, despite authorization for supervised visits. At trial, she acknowledged using heroin that day and conceded that she could not then care for the child. The trial court terminated her parental rights for failure to provide proper care and custody, failure to rectify conditions underlying a prior termination, and the likelihood of harm if the child were returned to her.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding termination to be in the child’s best interests. The mother did not challenge the statutory grounds for termination, so the appeal concerned only the best-interest determination.
The record supported findings that the mother had no bond with the child, lacked stable housing, had not participated in his life, and had made no meaningful progress in addressing her longstanding substance abuse. By contrast, the child was thriving with his grandparents, was bonded to his grandmother and half sibling, and had an available adoptive home. The trial court was entitled to credit agency testimony that the mother had provided no support or communication over her contrary account.
The court recognized that placement with relatives weighs against termination but concluded that it does not bar termination. Because the trial court expressly considered the relative placement and found that adoption would provide needed permanence and stability, while leaving parental rights intact could expose the child to disruption or future risk, its best-interest determination was not clearly erroneous.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s placement with relatives is an important best-interest factor weighing against termination, but it is not dispositive.
- Termination may remain appropriate when a parent has not addressed longstanding substance abuse, has no bond or visitation history with the child, and cannot provide a stable home.
- A relative’s willingness to adopt, the child’s successful placement, and the child’s need for permanence and stability may support termination instead of guardianship.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts must expressly account for relative placement in the best-interest analysis but may still terminate parental rights when the full record favors adoption and permanence. Relative care does not require a court to preserve parental rights or establish a guardianship where doing so would not serve the child’s interests.
For practitioners, the opinion also underscores the importance of evidence concerning visitation, parent-child bonding, treatment progress, housing stability, the child’s adjustment to placement, and the relative caregiver’s willingness to adopt.