STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
March 7, 2017
In re K. IRISH, Minor.
No. 334419
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 14-053923-NA
AFTER REMAND
Before: MURPHY, P.J., and SAWYER and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a remand ordered by us for the trial court to address the best interests of the
minor child, KI, in light of KI’s placement with his maternal aunt, the trial court again
terminated respondent father’s parental rights, concluding that KI’s best interests are served by
termination despite the relative placement. We affirm.
We previously held that the trial court did not clearly err by finding that MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) was proven by clear and convincing evidence and that reasonable efforts were
expended to reunify father and KI. In re Irish Minor, unpublished opinion per curiam of the
Court of Appeals, issued February 14, 2017 (Docket No. 334419), pp 2 and 5. After reciting the
applicable authorities, we then ruled as follows concerning KI’s best interests:
Here, the record reflects that the trial court, when rendering its very
lengthy and thoughtful ruling from the bench regarding the ground for termination
and KI’s best interests, referenced the child’s placement with the foster parents
multiple times. The trial court was also keenly aware from the testimony at the
termination hearing and from earlier proceedings that the foster parents were the
child’s maternal aunt and her partner. The court, in the context of addressing KI’s
best interests, found that the child was flourishing in foster care, that he had
developed a bond with his foster parents, that he was in need of permanence,
stability, and finality, with no indication that father could so provide, that the
foster home had advantages over father’s home, and that father still had issues
with domestic violence, drug use, and anger management. We conclude that there
was no clear error in regard to these particular findings. However, as conceded by
the prosecutor on behalf of the DHHS, the trial court failed to “explicitly address”
whether termination was appropriate in light of the child’s placement with his
-1-
maternal aunt. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s best-interest ruling and
remand for a ruling, within 28 days of the release of this opinion, that explicitly
addresses whether termination is appropriate in light of the child’s placement with
his maternal aunt. [Irish Minor, unpub op at 6.]
On remand, the trial court issued an extensive written opinion addressing the best-interest
question, ruling in part:
The Respondent Father’s failure to make any progress on his substance
abuse issues, domestic violence and anger, together with the clear need for this
child to have permanence, stability and finality in light of his long-term temporary
placement with his aunt, leaves this court with the firm belief that it is in the
child’s best interests to terminate the parental rights of the father even in light of
his relative placement. . . .
Moreover, the caseworker testified the Respondent Father could never
sustain adequate housing which could be evaluated by the agency for its
appropriateness to care for the minor child. This court has no reasonable
expectation that the Respondent Father can resolve his conditions and sustain
appropriate housing within a reasonable period of time to properly care for and
attend to the well-being of his minor child. It is not in the child’s best interests to
await indefinitely for Respondent Father to comply with and benefit from his
Parent Agency Agreement, notwithstanding the child’s placement with his
maternal aunt, and termination is in the child’s best interests.
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in ruling that the best interests of KI are
served by terminating father’s parental rights regardless of KI’s placement with his maternal
aunt. MCL 712A.19b(5); MCR 3.977(K); In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35, 41-42;
823 NW2d 144 (2012); In re Hudson, 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011). The trial
court’s reasoning was valid and sound, and we find no basis to disrupt the ruling.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
-2-