in Re Jcs, 335446

Petitioners (mother and stepfather) filed for stepparent adoption and sought termination of the biological father's parental rights under MCL 710.51(6) on August 18, 2015.
Father (respondent) opposed the adoption, moved for visitation via the Friend of the Court, and later moved for summary disposition claiming substantial compliance with the child-support order.
Record showed a child-support order from September 7, 2011; respondent was many thousands of dollars in arrears and made intermittent payments, with a long gap from late 2013 until July 2015.
Respondent had not had contact with the child since 2012 and had not arranged visits through the mother since 2014; petitioners alleged more than two years of nonpayment and no contact prior to the petition.
The trial court found the statutory requirements of MCL 710.51(6)(a) and (b) satisfied, held a best-interest hearing at respondent’s request, and terminated respondent’s parental rights to allow the stepparent adoption to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition was proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on statutory grounds of MCL 710.51(6)(a) (support)	Petitioners: undisputed arrearage and prolonged noncompliance show failure to substantially comply for 2+ years	Respondent: he substantially complied or had excuse (job loss) and thus summary disposition improper	Court: summary disposition proper—facts undisputed and show noncompliance with support order for the requisite period
Whether respondent failed to visit/contact under MCL 710.51(6)(b) for 2+ years	Petitioners: respondent had no contact or parenting time for years before petition	Respondent: he and mother agreed he would delay visitation until his living situation stabilized; mother impeded visits later	Court: held respondent failed to contact/visit and could have sought Friend of the Court relief; statutory requirement satisfied
Whether termination was authorized absent best-interest showing	Petitioners: statutory conditions met, but court may consider best interests before terminating	Respondent: urged court to consider best interests before terminating rights	Court: although not required, court permissibly considered best interests and found termination served the child's best interests; termination affirmed

In re Hill, 221 Mich. App. 683 (trial court may consider best interests in MCL 710.51(6) proceedings)
Kennedy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 274 Mich. App. 710 (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
West v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
In re SMNE, 264 Mich. App. 49 (where a support order exists, substantial compliance inquiry does not require separate ability-to-pay inquiry)
In re Newton, 238 Mich. App. 486 (court not required to grant termination under MCL 710.51(6) even if statutory conditions met)
In re Martyn, 161 Mich. App. 474 (court may consider reasons for noncompliance with support order)