A child’s foster care placement; MCL 722.954a; In re COH, ERH, JRG, & KBH; Whether terminating parental rights was in the child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); In re White

The court rejected respondent-mother’s claims that the trial court erred in (1) declining to remove the child (PG) “from his nonrelative foster care placement and return him to his former relative foster care placement where his sibling resided” and (2) finding that terminating her parental rights was in PG’s best interests. Thus, it affirmed the termination order. She suggested “the trial court should have given preference to PG’s maternal grandparents, and” that this should have led it “to return PG to their home.” The court disagreed. Under MCL 722.954a, the “DHHS must consider and prioritize relative placement as part of the initial case service plan, but ultimately the issue is the child’s best interests.” It found that the DHHS complied with the statute “by placing PG with his maternal grandparents as part of his initial case service plan upon removal. DHHS removed PG from [their] home after they expressed that they were not willing to care for him on a permanent basis. By the time respondent moved to review and modify PG’s foster care placement, circumstances had changed such that returning PG to his maternal grandparents’ home no longer served his best interests.” The court noted that the Supreme Court has explained that MCL 722.954a’s requirements “‘are intended to guide [DHHS’s] initial placement decision[]’ and apply ‘before any placement decision is made[.]’” Thus, the court disagreed with the argument “that the trial court should have given preference to PG’s maternal grandparents and that such preference should have led it to return PG to their home.” As to his best interests, the record showed “that PG, who was eight years old on the date of termination, shared a bond with respondent but wished to remain in the” care of his foster parents (the Ls). He called them “‘mom and dad’ and told the assigned caseworker that he ‘never had a bond like that before.’ [They] met PG’s needs and were willing to care for him on a permanent basis. The assigned caseworker also reported that PG improved in school, appeared happier, and appeared more rested since moving to the [Ls’] home. In contrast, respondent lacked suitable housing and employment. She failed to substantially comply with her case service plan or benefit from the offered services and consistently tested positive for amphetamine and” meth. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in its best-interest determination.