373422, 373423

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 10:59 AM In re PARRACK/RHOADES/SMITH, Minors. Nos. 373422; 373423 Kalamazoo Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2021-000175-NA Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, 1 respondents appeal by right the order terminating respondent-mother’s parental rights to the minor children PP, VR, IS, and MS 2 pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), (c)(ii) (failure to rectify other conditions), (g) (failure to provide proper care or custody), and (j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned to parent), and terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to VR, IS, and MS pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) (child deserted for 91 days or more). 3 We affirm. 1 Respondent-mother appeals by right in Docket No. 373422, and respondent-father appeals by right in Docket No. 373423; this Court consolidated respondents’ appeals “to advance the efficient administration of the appellate process.” In re Parrack/Rhoades/Smith Minors; In re Rhoades/Smith Minors, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 2, 2024 (Docket Nos. 373422; 373423). 2 Respondent-mother’s eldest child, SR, who was 15 years old at the time of termination, was also involved in these proceedings, but as discussed more thoroughly infra, the trial court did not proceed with termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights to SR after concluding that it was not in his best interests to do so. 3 The order also terminated the parental rights of all putative fathers to PP, none of whom are involved in this appeal. -1-  I. BACKGROUND In August 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over the children and remove them from respondents’ care. DHHS alleged neglect by respondent-mother toward her children, particularly focusing on her infant child, MS, who was malnourished and required surgery for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. 4 DHHS alleged that respondent-mother failed to schedule follow-up medical appointments for MS, which prompted the hospital to contact DHHS. Respondent-mother’s two oldest children, SR and PP, lived intermittently with their maternal grandparents throughout their lives, while the three younger children, VR, IS, and MS, were also often left with the grandparents. 5 Concerns were raised about respondent-mother’s housing situation, as she appeared to be living in a trailer without electricity and faced eviction; respondent-father was found living in similar conditions. There were also concerns about substance-abuse and mental-health issues, as well as domestic violence between respondents. Following a preliminary hearing, the trial court authorized the petition, removed the children from respondents’ care and placed them with their maternal grandparents, and granted unsupervised parenting time to respondent-mother and supervised parenting time to respondent-father. During the adjudication and interim dispositional hearings in March 2022, DHHS amended the petition to include allegations of inappropriate housing, which respondent-mother admitted when she pleaded to several allegations in the petition and to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the court’s orders, which adopted the case service plan provided by DHHS, respondent-mother’s parenting time was unsupervised, but she was required to complete a psychological evaluation and participate in individual counseling to progress to overnight parenting time. Respondent-father also pleaded to several allegations in the petition and to the court’s assumption of jurisdiction. Like respondent-mother, respondent-father admitted that he did not have appropriate housing for the children, and pursuant to his case service plan adopted by the court, he was required to undergo a psychological evaluation and substance-abuse assessment and engage in individual counseling. Throughout the review and permanency planning hearings, respondent-mother struggled with unstable housing, inconsistent employment, and substance-use issues, including positive drug tests. Due