Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Combined adjudication & dispositional hearing; Plain error review; In re Mota; Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2); Child’s best interests

The court held that while the trial court plainly erred in consolidating the adjudication trial and the dispositional hearing, respondent-father was not entitled to reversal because his substantial rights were not affected. Further, (1) the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts, (2) termination was supported under § (b)(i), and (3) it was in his child’s (JM) best interests. As to the combined trial and hearing, the court noted the “trial court relied on evidence that was supported by the record to justify both the exercise of jurisdiction over JM and the termination of” respondent’s rights. Thus, although it “committed ‘procedural errors in conducting the adjudicative and dispositional phases of the case,’” they did not affect respondent’s “substantial rights or the outcome of the lower-court proceedings. If the trial court had conducted the adjudication first and then turned to the dispositional hearing, the abundance of evidence presented at the consolidated hearing would have supported the exercise of jurisdiction over JM and then the termination of” respondent’s rights. The court next determined that the DHHS “clearly made reasonable efforts toward reunification.” Respondent contended “that if more efforts had been made to address his substance abuse,” an incident that occurred in 10/23 would not have happened. “But the foster-care worker testified that respondent[] ‘always denied’ his drug use.” She also denied that he “ever indicated to her that he had any substance-abuse issues or that he wanted help with his substance abuse.” While he was provided many opportunities to participate in services, “he lost access to them because of his own actions, which ultimately led to his incarceration.” As to § (b)(i), there was sufficient evidence “presented in the trial court to establish that there was a reasonable likelihood that JM would suffer a life-threatening injury in the foreseeable future if she were in” respondent’s care, and the trial court did not err in finding that termination was proper under this subsection. Finally, the trial court did not err in finding this was in JM’s best interests. It “found that she was doing well in her foster placement and her mother was working toward possible reunification with her.” It further determined that most of the evidence showed respondent “failed to protect JM and she was at a substantial risk of harm if returned to” him. Affirmed.