In re Bates

1

In re BATES, Minors.

No. 361566

Court of Appeals of Michigan

December 21, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Grand Traverse Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 18-004645-NA

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and Kirsten Frank Kelly and Anica Letica, JJ.

ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

This case returns to us on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court to consider "whether the Grand Traverse Circuit Court clearly erred by concluding that termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests."^[1] In re Bates, Mich.; 996 N.W.2d 130 (2023). Because we conclude the trial court did not clearly err when it terminated respondent's parental rights, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In this Court's previous 2-1 majority decision, the relevant facts and procedural history were set forth as follows:

In December 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over the children remove them from respondent's care, place them with their father, and terminate respondent's parental rights. An amended petition was filed in January 2020.

The petition was filed as a result of respondent's substance abuse and mental health issues, prior Child Protective Services cases involving her abuse of alcohol, and her inability to care for her children's health care needs. Approximately one year before the petition, AAB was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. The petition alleged that respondent could not care for AAB because while AAB was in her care, she failed to give him insulin and monitor his blood sugar levels for several days while he was observably sick. As a result, AAB went into diabetic ketoacidosis and was in critical condition at the hospital and in a coma for several days. In November 2020, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree child abuse because of her failure to provide AAB with proper medical assistance. Respondent was sentenced to five months in jail and 18 months' probation and was incarcerated from January 2021 until April 2021. When she was released, respondent violated her probation in July 2021 for consuming alcohol and was incarcerated again from July 2021 until October 2021. Respondent also was arrested twice for shoplifting in July 2021 and was intoxicated during these two incidents. The trial court held a termination hearing in March and April 2022, and concluded there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist) and (j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned to parent), and that termination was in the children's best interests. [In re Bates, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 23, 2023 (Docket No. 361566), pp 1-2 (footnote omitted).]

On appeal, the majority affirmed the trial court's determination that statutory grounds for termination had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. In relevant part, the Court stated:

The trial court concluded that statutory grounds for termination were met under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) because of respondent's failure to care for AAB's diabetes, failure to educate herself about AAB's diabetes until after she was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes herself, diminution of her role in AAB's diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalization, deflecting of blame to others, and continued substance abuse and mental health issues. The court noted that "[g]iven Respondent Mother's continued propensity to diminish her role in [AAB]'s [diabetic ketoacidosis] and deflect blame along with her continued struggle with substance abuse throughout this case, there is clear and convincing evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that the children will be harmed if they are returned to the home of Respondent Mother."

The record before us demonstrates that the trial court did not clearly err when it concluded there was a reasonably likelihood the children would be harmed if returned to respondent's care. Respondent struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues which had a negative effect on the children, culminating with AAB being hospitalized and near death as a result of respondent's neglect.

Respondent admitted that she did not educate herself about diabetes until she was diagnosed with the disease, which occurred after AAB's diagnosis. During the pendency of this case, respondent was unable to maintain sobriety and was arrested twice for shoplifting while intoxicated. Respondent's struggles with substance abuse created a life-threatening emergency to AAB, and respondent was unable to demonstrate to DHHS that she was prepared to safely care for her children going forward. Indeed, the children themselves stated they did not feel safe in respondent's care and wanted to have another adult check on them when with respondent. Accordingly, the trial court did not clearly err when it concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that there was a reasonable likelihood the children would be harmed if returned to respondent's care. See In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich.App. 713, 728; 858 N.W.2d 143 (2014) (trial court did not clearly err when it terminated respondent-father's parental rights where the evidence showed the respondent medically neglected his child, had substance abuse issues that would continue to pose a risk to the child, and failed to participate in services to care for child with medical needs). [In re Bates Minors, unpub op at 2-3 (footnote omitted).]

Judge Gleicher dissented, focusing on whether "it is in the children's best interests to terminate their relationship with their mother." Id. (GLEICHER, C.J., dissenting) at 5. Noting that "the children here have permanence and stability with their father," and that there was "no evidence whatsoever that the children's supervised visits with their mother harmed them," Judge Gleicher concluded:

[I]n its 42-page opinion exquisitely detailing mother's past failures and misdeeds, the trial court labored to ignore her successes and the powerful evidence of her present fitness. In my view, the termination of mother's parental rights based on her past conduct was mostly punitive rather than advancing anyone's best interests. I fear that the destruction of the children's relationship with their mother will punish them, as well. These children are not abused or neglected. They are not at risk of being abused or neglected. The permanent termination of their relationship with their mother punishes them as well as mother and conflicts with their short-term and long-term best interests. [Id. at 6.]

Respondent subsequently applied for leave with the Michigan Supreme Court, seeking review of this Court's determination that statutory grounds for termination were proper and, raising for the first time on appeal, the question of whether the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that termination was in the children's best interests. In lieu of granting respondent's application, the Supreme Court remanded the case to us "for consideration whether the Grand Traverse Circuit Court clearly erred by concluding that termination of the respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests." In re Bates, __ Mich. __; 996 N.W.2d 130 (2023).

II. APPLICABLE LAW

This Court reviews a trial court's best-interest determination for clear error. In re White, 303 Mich.App. 701, 713; 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014). A trial court's findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is "definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mistake." In re Keillor, 325 Mich.App. 80, 85; 923 N.W.2d 617 (2018). Whether termination of parental rights is in a child's best interests must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich.App. 76, 90; 836 N.W.2d 182 (2013). This Court must defer to the trial court's special opportunity to observe the witnesses. In re Dearmon, 303 Mich.App. 684, 700; 847 N.W.2d 514 (2014).

"That custody with natural parents serves a child's best interests remains a presumption of the strongest order and it must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent." In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich.App. 713, 724; 858 N.W.2d 143 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Although termination of parental rights requires proof of at least one of the statutory termination factors on clear and convincing evidence, "the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the best-interest determination." In re Moss, 301 Mich. at 83.

"If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that termination of parental rights is in the child's best interests, the court shall order termination of parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be made." MCL 712A.19b(5). "In deciding whether termination is in the child's best interests, the court may consider the child's bond to the parent, the parent's parenting ability, the child's need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent's home." In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich.App. 35, 41-42; 823 N.W.2d 144 (2012) (citations omitted). "The trial court may also consider . . . the parent's compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent's visitation history with the child, [and] the children's well-being while in care ...." In re White, 303 Mich.App. at 714. Each factor should be considered by the trial court separately for each child, but individual findings are not required if the children's interests are similar. Id. at 715-716. Importantly, when the court conducts a best-interests analysis, the appropriate focus "has always been on the child, not the parent." In re Moss, 301 Mich....