Termination under § 19b(3)(f); Child’s best interests; Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC)

Concluding that § 19b(3)(f) existed and termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights was in the child’s (PCE) best interests, the court affirmed. It was undisputed that petitioner was appointed guardian of PCE under the EPIC. Respondent “was ordered to pay $67 each month in child support beginning in” 9/21. From 9/21 “to the date of the termination hearing, respondent made only three support payments.” She did “not dispute that she did not comply with the support order for more than two years, but argues that she was unable earlier to make payments because of her addiction and incarceration. She admitted, however that she was only incarcerated for part of the time petitioner was guardian of PCE, that the incarceration was of short duration, and her support obligation therefore was not deferred.” Thus, the trial court did not err by finding that § 19b(3)(f)(i) was met. “MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(ii) is met when a parent, who has the ability to communicate, visit, or contact the child, fails to do so for two years or more.” Respondent did “not dispute that she has not visited PCE since early 2021, and did not maintain contact with PCE after moving out of petitioner’s mother’s home in early 2020.” Respondent argued “she could not maintain contact with PCE because she was in jail and had a strained relationship with petitioner.” Respondent did “not dispute, however, that she met with PCE only twice in 2021, and that petitioner attempted to arrange meetings between PCE and respondent.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err by holding that § 19b(3)(f)(ii) “had been met, and that termination of respondent’s parental rights therefore was warranted under” § 19b(3)(f).