in Re clayton/hickman Minors, 331678

Child JH born July 16, 2014; mother tested positive for cocaine and opiates at birth and has a history of substance abuse and prior removal of other children. DHHS removed JH and placed him with maternal grandmother.
Respondent later acknowledged paternity; he has a lengthy criminal history with felony drug convictions and was repeatedly incarcerated and on parole during proceedings.
DHHS provided respondent a parent-agency treatment plan (November 12, 2014) requiring housing, income, parenting classes, parole compliance, visitation, and court attendance. Respondent repeatedly failed to comply.
Respondent absconded from parole, missed visits (last regular visit Thanksgiving 2014), provided no financial or material support, failed drug tests while in a Stepdown program, and spent substantial time incarcerated through late 2015.
On January 26, 2016 the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), finding (among other things) no reasonable likelihood the conditions would be rectified and termination was in the child’s best interests because JH was thriving with grandmother who sought to adopt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination existed under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) (conditions continue; failure to provide care)	DHHS: Respondent failed to comply with treatment plan, remained mired in substance abuse/criminality, did not visit or support child — so conditions persist and will not be rectified in reasonable time	Respondent: (argued on appeal) court erred — he lacked sufficient opportunity or services to comply	Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supports termination under (c)(i) and (g) due to ongoing substance abuse, parole violations, lack of visitation/support, and no reasonable likelihood of timely rectification
Whether trial court erred in finding termination in child’s best interests	DHHS: Termination is in JH’s best interests because he is thriving with grandmother who can provide permanency and respondent cannot provide stability	Respondent: (argued) termination not in child’s best interests	Court: Affirmed—preponderance of evidence showed child’s bond/stability favored grandmother, respondent provided no support, failed treatment, and could not offer permanency

In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (standards for review of statutory grounds and best-interest findings)
In re Campbell, 170 Mich. App. 243 (1988) (definition of clear error)
In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (1989) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re McIntyre, 192 Mich. App. 47 (1991) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination grounds)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (2008) (need not address alternative statutory grounds once one is established)
In re Jones, 286 Mich. App. 126 (2009) (procedural requirement to order termination when statutory grounds and best interests satisfied)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (best-interests burden and factors)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (list of relevant best-interest factors)