in Re T Boone Minor ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                           STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    UNPUBLISHED
    In re T. BOONE, Minor.                                             December 14, 2017
    No. 338844
    Ottawa Circuit Court
    Family Division
    LC No. 15-079985-NA
    Before: MARKEY, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Respondent-mother appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights to the
    minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). Because the trial court did not clearly
    err by terminating respondent’s parental rights, we affirm.
    In July of 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned the
    trial court to remove the child from respondent’s care because respondent drove her car under the
    influence of drugs with the child in the car and respondent admitted to recent cocaine, marijuana,
    and heroin use. However, the trial court declined to authorize the petition and declined to take
    jurisdiction over the child. In December of 2015, the DHHS again petitioned the trial court to
    remove the child from respondent’s care because respondent committed two shoplifting offenses
    while the child was present and respondent was experiencing significant mental health and
    substance abuse issues. The trial court removed the child from respondent’s care and placed him
    with a foster family. Respondent entered a plea of admission to several of the allegations made
    by the DHHS and entered a plea of no contest to the remaining allegations. On April 11, 2017,
    the DHHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights. Ultimately, the trial court terminated
    respondent’s parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g).
    Respondent now appeals as of right.
    On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding statutory grounds for
    termination. Specifically, respondent argues that the DHHS failed to provide adequate services
    aimed at reunification. Respondent maintains that with more intensive mental health services
    she will be able to care for the child in a reasonable time. Thus, absent reasonable efforts to
    reunify the family, respondent contends that the trial court could not find clear and convincing
    evidence to terminate her parental rights.
    “In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find by clear and convincing
    evidence that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been
    met.” In re VanDalen, 
    293 Mich. App. 120
    , 139; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). This Court reviews for
    -1-
    clear error a trial court’s factual determination that statutory grounds for termination exist. Id.;
    MCR 3.977(K). Likewise, we review for clear error the trial court’s determination that the
    DHHS made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family. See In re Fried, 266 Mich
    App 535, 542-543; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the
    reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due
    regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the witnesses.” In re BZ, 
    264 Mich. App. 286
    , 296-297; 690 NW2d 505 (2004).
    In this case the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL
    712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). Relevant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), respondent’s substance
    abuse, criminality, and mental health issues led to the adjudication. With regard to MCL
    712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), the other conditions that would cause the child to come within the court’s
    jurisdiction included respondent’s difficulty maintaining employment, issues involving parenting
    skills, and housing concerns. Despite time and the opportunity to make changes, the evidence
    showed that respondent failed to rectify these various conditions. See In re White, 303 Mich
    App 701, 710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). At the time of termination, respondent continued to
    struggle with substance abuse, her mental health issues were unresolved, she was in jail with
    several pending criminal charges, she was unemployed, she had missed numerous parenting
    visits, she had been unsuccessfully discharged from programs aimed at addressing parenting
    skills, her housing was questionable in light of instances where her utilities had been turned off,
    and, more generally, she had failed to comply with her case service plan. Given the length of
    time that this case was pending and respondent’s failure to make any consistent progress, the trial
    court did not clearly err by concluding that, despite opportunities to rectify these concerns, the
    conditions continued to exist and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the conditions
    would be rectified in a reasonable time considering the child’s age. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
    (c)(ii). These same facts also support the trial court’s conclusion that respondent failed to
    provide proper care and custody and that there was no reasonable expectation that she would be
    able to do within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. See MCL 712A.19b(3)(g).
    Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
    established by clear and convincing evidence. See In re 
    VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. at 139
    .
    In contrast to this conclusion, respondent maintains that the DHHS failed to provide
    reasonable services and that, with more intensive mental health treatment, she could overcome
    any barriers to reunification and provide for the child within a reasonable time. In general, the
    DHHS “must make reasonable efforts to rectify conditions, to reunify families, and to avoid
    termination of parental rights.” In re LE, 
    278 Mich. App. 1
    , 18; 747 NW2d 883 (2008). Absent
    such efforts, termination of parental rights may be considered premature. In re Mason, 
    486 Mich. 142
    , 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). However, while the DHHS “has a responsibility to expend
    reasonable efforts to provide services to secure reunification, there exists
    a commensurate responsibility on the part of respondent[] to participate in the services that are
    offered.” In re Frey, 
    297 Mich. App. 242
    , 248; 824 NW2d 569 (2012).
    In this case, services were offered, but respondent failed to participate in, and benefit
    from, those services. While respondent contends that she was not provided adequate mental
    health treatment, the DHHS referred respondent for a psychological evaluation, a substance
    abuse assessment, and for biweekly out-patient counseling to address her substance abuse and
    mental health issues. Yet, respondent only attended approximately five counseling sessions
    -2-
    during the pendency of the case. And, when a caseworker suggested more intensive in-patient
    treatment, respondent refused. Although respondent sometimes participated in drug screens,
    those drug screens were sometimes positive for the components of heroin. Respondent was also
    referred for programs to assist with parenting skills, housing and employment; but she missed
    appointments and failed to follow through with the programs. Respondent also failed to attend
    approximately 40 parenting time visits during the pendency of the case. Based on this record,
    given respondent’s failure to avail herself of the opportunities offered to her, there is no merit to
    respondent’s assertion that the DHHS failed to provide adequate services, and the trial court’s
    decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights was not premature.
    Finally, on appeal, respondent also contends that the trial court clearly erred by
    determining that termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Specifically,
    respondent argues that she shares a bond with her child and that she has the parenting skills to
    care for him. Respondent also asserts that the child is Hispanic and a descendent of Daniel
    Boone. According to respondent, she is the best person to raise the child to ensure that he learns
    about his culture and heritage.
    Once a statutory ground for termination of parental rights has been established, before the
    trial court may terminate parental rights, the trial court must find by a preponderance of the
    evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Moss, 
    301 Mich. App. 76
    , 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013).
    The trial court should weigh all the evidence available to determine the
    [child’s] best interests. To determine whether termination of parental rights is in a
    child’s best interests, the court should consider a wide variety of factors that may
    include 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. The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of
    domestic violence, the parent’s compliance with his or her case service plan, the
    parent’s visitation history with the child, the [child’s] well-being while in care,
    and the possibility of adoption. [In re 
    White, 303 Mich. App. at 713-714
    (footnotes
    and quotation marks omitted).]
    This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests. In
    re Olive/Metts, 
    297 Mich. App. 35
    , 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012).
    In this case, the trial court recognized that there was a bond between respondent and the
    child, but the trial court found that the bond was “fading” because the child had grown
    accustomed to respondent’s failure to attend parenting time. This conclusion is supported by
    evidence that respondent had missed approximately 40 parenting time visits, that the child “very
    seldom” talked about respondent, and that, according to his foster mother, he had “gotten used
    to” respondent failing to attend parenting time. In contrast to the child’s fading bond with
    respondent, the trial court determined, based on the evidence, that the child had a “great bond
    with his foster family.” The trial court noted that the child was “comfortable” with his foster
    parents, and their children, with whom he had been living for a year and a half. The foster
    parents were willing to adopt the child, and the trial court weighed the “high” likelihood of
    adoption in favor of termination. Unlike the foster family, respondent had proven unable to
    -3-
    provide stability and permanence, and she continued to struggle with numerous issues, including
    mental health problems, that prevented her from providing proper care and custody for the child.
    Given that respondent had failed to show progress in the year and a half she had been receiving
    services, the trial court concluded that it would not be “fair” to the child to spend additional time
    waiting for respondent. On the whole, considering a wide variety of factors, the trial court
    concluded that termination was in the child’s best interests.
    In contrast, respondent argues that termination of her parental rights was not in the
    child’s best interests because of the child’s heritage. However, as the DHHS points out on
    appeal, during the year-and-a-half that the trial court exercised jurisdiction over the case,
    respondent never once mentioned any concerns about ensuring that the child was raised in the
    Hispanic culture. Respondent did briefly mention being descended from Daniel Boone during
    her testimony at the termination hearing. However, assuming this is true, respondent does not
    articulate why the child’s foster parents cannot support this cultural consideration. Indeed,
    respondent’s claim that she is in the best position to raise the child in light of his heritage is
    undermined by the fact that respondent has proven herself unable to provide for the child at all.
    Overall, given respondent’s inability to provide for the child, her fading bond with the child, and
    the likelihood of the child’s adoption by parents to whom he is strongly bonded, the trial court
    did not clearly err by determining that termination was in the child’s best interests. Accordingly,
    the trial court did not err by terminating respondent’s parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5).
    Affirmed.
    /s/ Jane E. Markey
    /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
    /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 338844

Filed Date: 12/14/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021