Termination of a child's guardianship; Failure to comply with a remand order; “Best interests of a minor” in the context of guardianship proceedings; MCL 700.5101(a); The trial court’s factual findings

Holding that the trial court failed to comply with its remand order and abused its discretion by finding termination of petitioners’ (grandparents) guardianship was not in the child’s best interests, the court again remanded. Early in the case, the trial court removed the child from respondent-mother’s care and placed her in petitioners’ care. Years later, respondent filed a motion to terminate the guardianship, which the trial court denied. In a prior appeal, the court found that the trial court applied the proper evidentiary standard, but “did not adequately articulate its best-interest findings on the record.” As such, it remanded “to allow the trial court to place on the record its findings regarding the relevant best-interest factors,” taking into account up-to-date information. On remand, the trial court found that considering “the sum total of all factors, the best interest of the [child] would not be met in granting the petition for termination of guardianship.” In the present appeal, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court failed to comply with the court’s remand order and abused its discretion by holding that termination of the guardianship was not in the child’s best interests. Although the trial court “made findings under each best-interest factor, it failed to state its conclusion regarding which party, if any, the factor favored. Nor did [it] indicate what weight or relative weight it gave each relevant factor.” And it “only made findings concerning petitioners on” certain factors. “In light of the fact that the trial court did not identify which factors supported its decision, or specify whether each factor favored a particular party, or both, or neither, and did not discuss what weight it gave various factors,” the record was insufficient for the court to make that determination. As such, “a second remand for the trial court to provide adequate articulation of the best-interest factors is required. On remand, the trial court should make findings regarding each relevant factor and, where appropriate, either make findings regarding both petitioners and respondent or state its rationale for not making findings with regard to a party.” It should “also state, for each factor, whether [it] has concluded that the factor favors respondent, petitioners, both, or neither party, and why.” And it should “indicate the relative weight it has given a factor where appropriate.” Further, in making its findings, it “should not rely on evidence that was not admitted into the record.” Finally, it “should consider up-to-date information when doing so.” The court retained jurisdiction.