in Re Phelps Minors, 332762

Two minor children (and an older sister not part of this appeal) were removed from respondent father's care in Sept. 2013 for neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, and unstable housing.
Over ~2.5 years the department provided services: substance-abuse treatment (including inpatient and methadone clinic), parenting-time, housing assistance (including financial help), employment help, and therapy.
Respondent completed an inpatient substance program and had frequent parenting time, but repeatedly tested positive for oxycodone/hydrocodone, failed to secure consistent suitable housing or employment, did not complete assigned therapeutic homework, and denied responsibility for the children’s trauma.
A supplemental petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights was filed Feb. 2016; the circuit court terminated rights in April 2016 under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). Respondent appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence that conditions leading to adjudication persisted and that termination was in the children’s best interests because they needed permanency and stability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Respondent)	Defendant's Argument (Petitioner/State)	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were established	Respondent: he made consistent progress, completed his parent-agency plan except housing, made good-faith efforts to obtain housing	State: respondent failed to obtain stable housing or employment, continued substance issues, and did not benefit from services over a prolonged period	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported both statutory grounds; conditions persisted and unlikely to be remedied in a reasonable time
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Respondent: he shared a bond with the children and could have secured housing quickly to reunify	State: children needed permanency; they were thriving in foster care; respondent lacked ability to provide stability	Affirmed — preponderance of evidence supported best-interests finding; need for stability outweighed bond

In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (1999) (trial court must consider all evidence when assessing best interests)
In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (2009) (standard of review for termination grounds is clear error)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (best-interests burden is preponderance; clear-error standard for findings)
In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (2009) (definition of clearly erroneous for appellate review)
In re Dahms, 187 Mich. App. 644 (1991) (children should not remain in foster care indefinitely while parent fails to rectify conditions)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (relevant best-interests factors include bond, parenting ability, need for permanency, and advantages of foster placement)