Background
Children’s Protective Services became involved after the child was born with methamphetamine in his system and experienced withdrawal symptoms. The Department of Health and Human Services later sought removal based on the mother’s continuing substance abuse, criminal activity, domestic violence, and unstable housing. The child was placed with the mother’s stepfather and his wife.
The mother spent substantial periods incarcerated but participated in prison programs and maintained contact with the child. After her March 2025 release, she obtained housing and employment but relapsed on methamphetamine, violated parole, and appeared intoxicated at several parenting-time sessions. After approximately 30 months of services, the trial court terminated her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), finding that the conditions leading to adjudication continued and that termination served the child’s best interests.
On appeal, the mother did not challenge the statutory ground for termination. She argued only that the trial court clearly erred in its best-interests determination, emphasizing her service-plan participation, positive interactions with the child when sober, their asserted bond, and the child’s placement with relatives.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The record supported the trial court’s findings that the mother’s continuing methamphetamine use impaired her ability to parent, undermined her compliance with the service plan, and prevented her from consistently engaging with and supervising the child. Although visits went well when she was sober, her relapse and intoxication during some visits weighed in favor of termination.
The court also upheld the finding that no meaningful parent-child bond existed. Although witnesses acknowledged affection between the mother and child, other testimony showed that the child did not ask about or discuss the mother, and her incarceration had limited their time together.
Finally, the court concluded that the trial court adequately considered the child’s placement with the mother’s stepfather and his wife. The stepfather qualified as a relative under Michigan law even though the trial court called him “fictive kin.” Reading the termination order as a whole, the appellate court determined that the trial court treated relative placement as weighing against termination, considered guardianship, and nevertheless reasonably found termination to be in the child’s best interests.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s partial compliance with a service plan does not preclude termination when continuing substance abuse impairs parenting and prevents meaningful progress toward reunification.
- A trial court may find that a meaningful parent-child bond is lacking despite evidence of affection when incarceration and limited contact have prevented a sustained parental relationship.
- Relative placement weighs against termination but is not dispositive; a court may still terminate parental rights after expressly considering that placement and determining that termination serves the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts focus on the child’s need for stability and permanency when assessing best interests, particularly after extended foster placement and unsuccessful reunification services. Evidence that a parent functions well during periods of sobriety may be insufficient when repeated relapse continues to affect parenting ability.
The opinion also clarifies that an imprecise description of a caregiver as “fictive kin” does not require reversal when the caregiver qualifies as a statutory relative and the record shows that the trial court gave the relative placement its required weight.