in Re a L Binyard Minor, 333485

Child AB was placed with respondent father in July 2012 but the court ordered him to obtain suitable housing; he remained living with his mother (who was on the CPS registry).
Respondent was arrested in Sept. 2012; AB was removed and placed with maternal aunt until June 2015, then a nonrelative foster home and later a pre-adoptive home.
Respondent had multiple periods of incarceration (including Dec 2013–May 2014 and beginning June 4, 2015, with release not until June 2017) and a roughly 10‑month period (Aug 2014–June 2015) when he was not incarcerated but did not secure suitable housing or stable legal income.
Caseworkers’ records showed little or no contact or visits after April 2013; respondent claims intermittent visits and some financial gifts but lacked consistent employment or credible proof of support.
Trial court found respondent effectively deserted AB for 91+ days, could not provide proper care or custody within a reasonable time given AB’s age (nearly seven), and that termination was in AB’s best interests because she had achieved stability in a pre-adoptive placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory ground of desertion under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) was proved	Evidence shows respondent failed to support, contact, or seek custody for 91+ days => desertion	Respondent contends he visited, provided care through a family friend, and sought housing	Court: Clear and convincing evidence of desertion; credibility findings favored trial court
Whether termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care; no reasonable expectation of correction) was proved	Child was without stable housing/support for years; respondent cannot provide proper care within reasonable time	Respondent argued incarceration alone cannot be sole basis and proposed placement with nonrelative caregiver	Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported (respondent’s long instability, incarceration, lack of plan)
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	Child needs permanency; bonded with foster parents; recent stability in pre‑adoptive home	Respondent argued proposed caregiver would care for child during incarceration and intends to provide after release	Court: By preponderance, termination was in AB’s best interests due to need for stability and respondent’s lack of demonstrated ability or plan

In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (superseded on other grounds) (standard that at least one statutory ground must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (clarifies clearly erroneous standard of review)
In re Laster, 303 Mich. App. 485 (desertion established by lack of support/contact)
In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich. App. 713 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (procedural/standard guidance; statutory supersession note for Trejo)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (factors for best‑interest analysis)
In re Jones, 286 Mich. App. 126 (review standard for best‑interest finding)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (incarceration not automatically dispositive; placement with relative can satisfy care requirement)