Background
The child was born in October 2024 and tested positive for cocaine, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, methadone, and other substances. He experienced withdrawal symptoms and remained hospitalized for more than six weeks. His mother admitted to actively using cocaine and heroin, struggling with addiction for more than a decade, failing to complete prior substance-abuse treatment, and receiving no prenatal care. She also lacked a housing or employment plan.
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services sought removal and termination, citing the mother’s substance abuse, neglect, and a 2018 termination of her rights to another child. After discharge, the child was placed with his maternal grandparents, who also cared for his half sibling. The mother repeatedly missed hearings, could rarely be located, provided no verified support, and did not visit the child after November 2024 despite supervised visitation being available. At trial, she admitted using heroin that same day and acknowledged that she could not then care for the child.
The trial court terminated her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j). It found termination necessary to give the child permanence, stability, and finality, even though he was living with relatives. The mother appealed only the trial court’s best-interests determination, not the existence of statutory grounds for termination.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in the child’s best interests. The record supported findings that the mother had no bond with the child, had not participated in his life, lacked stable housing, and had made no meaningful progress in addressing her longstanding addiction. Her stated desire to enter treatment and pursue reunification did not outweigh her continued heroin and crack-cocaine use or her failure to complete prior treatment.
The court also held that the child’s placement with relatives did not preclude termination. The trial court expressly considered that placement and reasonably found that adoption by the grandmother offered greater stability and permanence than guardianship or leaving the mother’s rights intact. The child was thriving, had bonded with his grandmother and half sibling, and faced no identified barrier to adoption, while the mother’s unresolved problems could disrupt his placement or expose him to harm if the grandmother could no longer care for him.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s placement with relatives weighs against termination but is not a bar when termination remains in the child’s best interests.
- Continued drug use, unsuccessful treatment efforts, lack of visitation, and absence of a parent-child bond may support termination despite a parent’s stated plan to pursue recovery.
- A trial court need not choose guardianship over termination when adoption better serves the child’s need for permanence, stability, and finality.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts must expressly consider relative placement in the best-interests analysis, but may still terminate parental rights when the record shows that adoption by the relative offers the child greater security and permanence.
It also underscores that the best-interests inquiry focuses on the child’s present and foreseeable needs, not merely the parent’s expressed intentions. Unsupported plans for future treatment may carry little weight when the parent continues using drugs, remains absent from the child’s life, and has not remedied the conditions underlying an earlier termination.