in Re a S Sanchez Minor, 333993

Child (female) removed from respondent father’s custody; respondent father had extensive criminal history including domestic violence, CSC, and sexual battery convictions leading to extended incarcerations in multiple jails (Oakland, Macomb, Cuyahoga).
Petition sought termination of father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) and (n)(i) (risk of harm to child; sexual conduct/abuse history). Father conceded statutory grounds on appeal.
DHHS attempted to provide reunification services per the parent/agency agreement (PAA), but service workers repeatedly found the jails did not offer parenting or domestic-violence programs while father was incarcerated and transferred.
Father argued DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts and analogized to In re B & J (state-caused impossibility of services). Trial court found father’s criminal conduct—and resulting incarceration—caused the inability to complete services, not DHHS.
At the best-interest hearing the child was placed with maternal relatives, thriving, bonded to them, and relatives wished to adopt; father’s bond with child had weakened due to long-term incarceration and limited contact.
Trial court found termination was in the child’s best interests (stability, permanency, safety concerns from father’s history outweighed relative placement), and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify	DHHS made reasonable efforts: service workers contacted each jail and attempted to secure programs; inability to complete services was due to jail limitations and father’s incarceration	Father: offered services were unattainable while incarcerated; DHHS effectively set him up to fail (analogy to In re B & J)	Court held DHHS made reasonable efforts; father’s voluntary criminal conduct caused service impossibility, not petitioner; In re B & J distinguishable
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests	Termination favored child: child bonded to relatives, thriving, needs stability and permanency; father’s violent/sexual criminal history and uncertain release made return unlikely	Father: relative placement weighs against termination; argued termination was not necessary given relatives are caring for child	Court held termination was in child’s best interests by preponderance: majority of best-interest factors (bonding, parenting ability, safety, permanency, time in care, improbability of return) favored termination despite relative placement

In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (court reviews termination findings for clear error; petitioner must make reasonable reunification efforts)
In re B & J, 279 Mich App 12 (state-caused deportation/agency actions can preclude termination where state’s actions create ground for termination)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (relative placement is an explicit factor that courts must consider in best-interest analysis)
In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120 (children’s need for stability and permanency can justify termination even when children are thriving in temporary placement)