Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); In re White; In re Ellis; Claim that the court should assume respondent’s appeal of criminal convictions will be successful; Abandoned issue; Cheesman v. Williams; People v. Elston; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Frey; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Smith; In re VanDalen; In re Utrera; In re HRC; Referral for a psychological examination or counseling; Parenting time; In re Laster; Children’s best interests; In re Olive/Metts Minors; In re Moss Minors; In re Schadler; In re LE; In re Fried

Holding that § (c)(i) existed, reasonable reunification efforts were made, and termination of respondent-father’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed. The statutory ground of subsection § (c)(i) was met “when the conditions that brought the children into foster care continue to exist despite time to make changes and the opportunity to take advantage of a variety of services.” The trial court terminated his parental rights to the children more than 182 days after its initial dispositional order in this case. He “admitted that because of the prison sentence, he did not have the current ability to care for his children.” The primary conditions leading to adjudication—his “incarceration and corresponding inability to care for his children—continued to exist at the time of termination, and the temporal period listed in MCL 712A.19b(3) had passed.” Another condition leading to adjudication was his issue with alcohol. It “was because of drunk driving that he had been incarcerated in the first place. Respondent violated his probation for the driving offense by again drinking alcohol, and his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings was sporadic at best. This condition was not adequately rectified by the time of termination and, given respondent’s history regarding alcohol, there was no reasonable likelihood that it would be rectified within a reasonable time considering” his children’s ages.