Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re Sours; In re Trejo Minors; In re Moss Minors; In re White; In re Powers; Child’s best interests; In re Laster; In re Moss Minors; In re Jones; In re BZ; In re VanDalen; In re Frey; In re Gillespie; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Placement with relatives; MCL 712A.12a(1)(j); In re Schadler

Holding that § (c)(i) existed and termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s (E) best interests, the court affirmed. The trial court did not clearly err by holding that the conditions that led to her adjudication continued to exist and that there was no reasonable likelihood that they would be rectified in a reasonable time, considering E’s age. “Respondent admitted in her plea that she had a substance abuse issue involving [meth] that negatively impacted her ability to parent, and that she needed services.” At the termination hearing, over a year later, she had made no effort to deal with her substance abuse issues. “She had absconded from a jail diversion program, had not participated in counseling for substance abuse, had tested positive for” meth in 3/19, and had then left the state with her newborn infant. Respondent’s whereabouts at the time were unknown. The trial court did not clearly err by determining that her issues with substance abuse, which caused her to be unable to parent E, continued to exist. “Moreover, given respondent’s prior contacts with CPS, her failure to make any substantial progress on her treatment plan, and her disappearance after the” 4/19 drug screen, the court held that “the trial court did not clearly err by finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that there was no reasonable likelihood that those conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” E’s age.