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 addiction for more than a decade, was actively using cocaine and heroin, had not completed substance-abuse treatment, and lacked stable housing or employment. 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 immediate termination of the mother’s parental rights. After leaving the hospital, the child was placed with his maternal grandparents, who also cared for his half sibling. The mother did not visit or support the child, remained difficult to locate, and admitted at trial that she had used heroin that day and was then unable to care for him. The trial court terminated her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j), finding termination necessary to provide the child with permanence and stability.
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 showed no parent-child bond, no visitation while the child lived with his grandparents, no stable home for the mother, and no meaningful progress in addressing her longstanding addiction. By contrast, the child was thriving with his grandparents, had bonded with his grandmother and half sibling, and had an available adoptive home.
The Court of Appeals recognized that placement with relatives weighs against termination and must be considered. But relative placement is not a bar to termination, and the trial court expressly considered it before concluding that adoption, rather than guardianship, would best provide stability, permanence, and protection from the risk posed by the mother’s unresolved problems.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s placement with relatives weighs against termination but does not prevent termination when the child’s best interests favor adoption.
- The court may consider the absence of a parental bond, visitation and support history, unresolved substance abuse, housing instability, and the child’s success in the proposed adoptive home.
- A trial court need not establish a guardianship instead of terminating parental rights when guardianship would not serve the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan courts must expressly account for relative placement in the best-interest analysis, while retaining authority to terminate parental rights when adoption offers greater permanence and stability. A parent’s stated intention to pursue treatment may carry little weight when the record shows continued drug use, nonparticipation, and no demonstrated progress.