in Re E W Pops Minor, 337000

Background

EP, born 2013, was removed from respondent (Pops) in June 2014 after Pops fled police with nine‑month‑old EP in the car and officers found marijuana in the vehicle. Petitioner assumed jurisdiction.
Initial plan ordered drug screens, substance‑abuse evaluation, parenting classes, employment; respondent later incarcerated and services participation was inconsistent.
A July 2015 termination order was entered; this Court (In re Pops) reversed in 2016 because petitioner had not adequately considered placement with grandmother and the record showed meaningful pre‑incarceration service participation.
On remand, petitioner reoffered services (random drug tests, substance counseling, parenting time, individual therapy) and reconsidered grandmother placement; grandmother declined placement while housing respondent.
After restoration, respondent missed parenting sessions or appeared distracted, attended minimal counseling, had multiple missed drug screens, and tested positive for marijuana five times (missed screens treated as positives). Respondent denied a substance problem and cited work scheduling conflicts.
The trial court again terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j); this appeal concerns whether statutory grounds existed (court affirmed based on (c)(i)).

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether statutory ground (c)(i) was proved (conditions continuing, >182 days, no reasonable likelihood of rectification)	Substance abuse persisted: multiple positive/missed drug screens, minimal counseling, 31 months in care — no reasonable likelihood of rectification	Respondent argued employment conflicts, claimed limited participation and readiness for custody, denied substance use, and cited interruptions from incarceration and scheduling	Held: Affirmed. (c)(i) satisfied — continued substance abuse, missed/positive screens, inadequate remediation over time
Whether termination could be improper because respondent was incarcerated and there was potential relative placement	Petitioner argued post‑remand reconsideration occurred and grandmother declined placement because she housed respondent; focus remained on respondent’s substance issues	Respondent argued an incarcerated parent can reunify by placing child with a relative and that grandmother could have been licensed (as earlier opinion stressed)	Held: On this appeal the court did not need to resolve relative‑placement issue because (c)(i) alone sufficed; prior remand had addressed placement concerns
Whether termination was improper under (j) (harm or likelihood of harm)	Petitioner relied on overall risk from respondent’s substance abuse and failure to rectify conditions	Respondent denied harming EP and argued no evidence showed likely harm	Held: Court did not decide (j) because only one statutory ground ((c)(i)) was required to affirm

Key Cases Cited

In re Pops, 315 Mich. App. 590 (2016) (prior appellate reversal requiring consideration of relative placement and recognizing meaningful pre‑incarceration participation)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (standard of review for termination statutory‑grounds determinations is clear error)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (only one statutory ground need be proven to terminate parental rights)