COA 376273 IN RE DAVIS MINORS Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 7/14/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
UNPUBLISHED
July 14, 2026
11:34 AM
In re DAVIS, Minors.
No. 376273
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC Nos. 23-000720-NA,
23-000721-NA, and
23-000722-NA
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and PATEL and KOROBKIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to three
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm for the reasons stated in
this opinion.
I. BASIC FACTS
In September 2023, petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a
petition seeking removal of the children and termination of respondent’s parental rights. Petitioner
alleged that one of respondent’s children had tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)1 at
birth and that respondent had burned down her house due to mental illness. Respondent entered a
plea of admission to the allegations in the petition. Based upon her plea and testimony from a
caseworker, the trial court found statutory grounds for jurisdiction and exercised jurisdiction over
the children.
1 “Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the physiologically active component of marijuana. See
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (26th ed), p 1791.” People v Koon, 494 Mich 1, 3 n 3; 832 NW2d
724 (2013).

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
The plan was later changed from termination to reunification, and the trial court adopted a
case service plan that required respondent to address her issues with mental health, substance use,
interpersonal communication, housing, and employment. As part of this plan, the trial court
ordered respondent to stop using marijuana because her doctors indicated that it interfered with
her psychiatric medication. Although respondent generally participated in services, her
caseworker testified that she failed to demonstrate a sustained benefit. Eventually, a supplemental
petition was filed seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights. At trial, multiple
caseworkers and service providers stated that respondent had been aggressive and threatening to
them. Respondent admitted that she gets “triggered” when things feel unfair. Moreover,
respondent consistently tested positive for THC until shortly before the termination trial. At that
time, she was eight months pregnant with another child. Following the termination hearing, the
trial court found statutory grounds to terminate her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). The court also found that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
II. BEST INTERESTS
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination of her
parental rights was in her children’s best interests. “We review for clear error a trial court’s factual
finding that termination of a parent’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” In re Atchley,
341 Mich App 332, 346; 990 NW2d 685 (2022).
B. ANALYSIS
Trial courts should weigh all available evidence to determine what is in the children’s best
interests. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 713; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). At the best-interests stage,
the focus is on the child, not the parents. In re Atchley, 341 Mich App at 346. The court may
consider the following factors:
the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for
permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the
parent’s home. The trial court may also consider a parent’s history of domestic
violence, the parent’s compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent’s
visitation history with the child, the children’s well-being while in care, and the
possibility of adoption. [In re White, 303 Mich App at 713-714.]
Here, the record reflects that respondent had a bond with each of her children. However,
her inconsistent participation in services and ongoing mental-health issues prevented her from
providing the children with the care that they needed. Two of the children had mental-health issues
stemming from trauma sustained in respondent’s care, and the youngest child had been diagnosed
with autism. The children’s needs—including their mental-health needs—were being met by their
foster parents, they were bonded with their foster parents, and their foster parents were willing to
adopt them. The court noted repeatedly that each child needed permanency, stability, and finality.
Respondent could not meet those needs. She was rude and combative with the caseworkers, law-
enforcement had to be called in response to her behavior, and respondent consistently tested

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
positive for marijuana even though it negatively impacted her psychiatric medications. Indeed,
respondent admitted that she was “triggered” whenever she was “cut off” or “treated unfairly.”
Her psychologist testified that respondent’s mental-health disorder meant that respondent had a
“low tolerance for frustration,” which would cause her to “lash out” at others, including children.
Respondent’s “triggers” were demonstrated by her being threatening or aggressive with her
caseworkers and service providers. As such, her ability to parent the children was negatively
impacted. And, despite being offered services to address those issues, respondent participated
inconsistently in the services offered. Considering the entirety of the record, we conclude that the
trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Sima G. Patel
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin

-- 3 of 3 --