e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 81942
Opinion Date : 07/11/2024
e-Journal Date : 07/22/2024
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re McKendrick
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Boonstra, Cavanagh, and Patel
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Best interests of the children; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Relative placement; MCL 712A.19a(8)(a); “Relative”; 712A.13a(1)(j)(i); Guardianship; In re TK

Summary

Holding that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her rights were terminated on the basis of physical and sexual abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, neglect, and improper supervision. On appeal, she argued that because the children are in “relative placement” the trial court was required to consider that factor in determining whether termination of her parental rights was in their best interests. The court noted that the trial court “did consider the children’s placement with their fictive kin grandmother.” The court also rejected her claim that the trial court’s best-interest decision was flawed because it failed to consider whether the children should have been placed in a guardianship with their fictive kin grandmother to afford her additional time to complete services and work toward reunification. “Contrary to respondent’s assertions, the trial court considered whether a guardianship would be appropriate and concluded that it would not be.” It noted that the trial court “rejected the possibility of continuing the guardianship because it found more compelling the children’s needs for stability, permanency, and finality . . .” and properly determined that “continuing the guardianship in lieu of terminating respondent’s parental rights to [the children] was not a viable option.” Finally, the court rejected her contention that termination was not in the children’s best interests because she is bonded with them, she completed her parenting class, and she overcame her drug addiction, noting she “had ample time to make changes and take advantage of a variety of services that were available, but failed to do so until the eleventh hour. Because of [the children’s] need for permanency, stability, and finality, they cannot wait in limbo for positive changes to potentially manifest.”

Full PDF Opinion