COA 377159 IN RE MCCLELLAND/THOMAS MINORS Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 4/15/2026

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UNPUBLISHED
April 15, 2026
9:05 AM
In re MCCLELLAND/THOMAS, Minors.
No. 377159
Sanilac Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 23-036620-NA
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and BORRELLO and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court once again after remand proceedings in the trial court, which
followed an earlier appeal where the respondent’s1 parental rights to two minor children were
terminated. In its prior opinion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction and
found that statutory grounds for terminating the respondent’s parental rights to each child were
established by clear and convincing evidence. See In re McClelland/Thomas, unpublished opinion
of the Court of Appeals, March 19, 2025 (Docket No. 371123), at 1-2. However, this Court
vacated the trial court’s best-interests determination and remanded for reconsideration of whether
termination was in the children’s best interests, specifically considering their placement with a
relative. On remand, the trial court again determined that termination was in the children’s best
interests and entered an order terminating respondent’s parental rights to both children. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The salient factual background, as previously summarized by this Court, is as follows.
In February 2023, Children’s Protective Services initiated an investigation
after CM disclosed to school personnel that she had been sexually abused by
1 Because the biological fathers of the children are not parties to this appeal, we will refer to
respondent-mother as “respondent.”

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
respondent’s live-in boyfriend, J. Thomas, the biological father of JT. The
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sought termination of
respondent’s parental rights at the initial disposition, principally on the basis of her
failure to protect the children from Thomas’s physical and sexual abuse. During
the adjudicative proceedings, a jury concluded that statutory grounds existed for
the exercise of jurisdiction over the children. Consequently, the court assumed
jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). Subsequently, the trial court found
that clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds for termination of
respondent’s parental rights and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
[Id. at 1-2.]
In the prior appeal, this Court observed that there was substantial evidence indicating that
respondent’s live-in boyfriend sexually abused CM and physically abused both CM and JT. Id. at
3-5. The record also established that respondent was aware of the abuse yet permitted Thomas to
remain in the home and failed to undertake protective actions. This Court further noted that
respondent accused CM of fabricating the allegations and instructed CM to lie to authorities
regarding the abuse. Id. Accordingly, this Court affirmed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction
and its finding of statutory grounds for termination based on this evidentiary record. Id. at 4-6.
With respect to the trial court’s best-interests analysis, this Court noted that, although both
children had been placed with a relative, the trial court did not specifically address the import of
relative placement, which generally weighs against termination. Id. at 6-7. This Court therefore
remanded for the trial court to “address the issue and render a new finding regarding the children’s
best interests.” Id. at 7.
Upon remand, the trial court articulated a renewed best-interests determination on the
record. The court considered the children’s ages, noting that CM neither wished to reunify with
respondent nor maintained a substantial bond with her, and that CM had been significantly
traumatized both by the abuse and by respondent’s inadequate response to her disclosure. The
trial court further found that CM was thriving in her relative foster placement. Although the court
acknowledged the existence of some bond between respondent and JT, it attributed this to JT’s
youth and limited awareness of the abuse. The trial court further evaluated the children’s weak
bond with respondent, their positive relationship with the foster family, and the prospect of
adoption. The court found respondent incapable of providing a stable and protective home for the
children due to her persistent denial of culpability and failure to appreciate the gravity of the harm
suffered by her children. The court also considered the documented history of domestic violence
and respondent’s broader history. Ultimately, the court concluded that termination was in the
children’s best interests notwithstanding their placement with a relative.
The trial court thereafter issued a written opinion and order terminating respondent’s
parental rights to both children, expressly finding that termination was in their best interests and
stating: “[B]ased upon the overwhelming facts supporting the best interests of the minor children
on the whole record, relative placement does not outweigh any of the best interest factors and/or
the totality of the record.”
II. ANALYSIS

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
On appeal, respondent contends that termination of her parental rights was not in the
children’s best interests given their placement with relatives.
This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s factual determination that termination of
parental rights is in the best interests of the child. In re Atchley, 341 Mich App 332, 346; 990
NW2d 685 (2022). A finding is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, the
reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at
338. In the context of parental termination proceedings, deference is afforded to the trial court’s
assessment of witness credibility, given its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses. In re
Mota, 334 Mich App 300, 320; 964 NW2d 881 (2020).
Whether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be
established by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d
182 (2013). The best-interests analysis focuses on the child, not the parent. In re Mota, 334 Mich
App at 321. The trial court may consider a nonexhaustive list of factors in assessing whether
termination is in the child’s best interests, including:
the strength of the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s capacity for parenting,
the child’s need for permanency, stability, and finality, and the comparative
advantages of a foster placement versus the parental home. Additional
considerations include the duration of the child’s placement in care, the likelihood
of reunification within a reasonable time frame, and compliance with the case
service plan. [In re Atchley, 341 Mich App at 346-347.]
Moreover, the trial court is required to consider a child’s placement with relatives in its
best-interests determination, and such placement generally weighs against termination. In re Mota,
334 Mich App at 321.
In cases involving multiple children, the trial court must assess each child’s best interests
individually. While it is generally presumed that siblings should remain together, if such
placement is contrary to the best interests of an individual child, the interests of that child are
paramount. In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 42; 823 NW2d 144 (2012). The trial court is not
required to make duplicative factual findings if the children’s interests do not materially diverge
but must address any significant differences. In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 715-716; 846 NW2d
61 (2014).
Here, respondent contends on appeal that termination was unwarranted due to her mental
health and cognitive impairments, the absence of offered services following the initial disposition,
and the claim that she had not previously exposed the children to abusive individuals. She further
asserts that the children’s relative placement militated against termination. However, respondent’s
arguments fail to address the trial court’s findings regarding the impact of her actions and
omissions on the children’s welfare, which the court determined were not outweighed by the
relative placement. Respondent’s appellate briefing improperly centers her own interests, whereas
the appropriate focus at the best-interests stage is on the children. In re Mota, 334 Mich App at
321. Additionally, to the extent respondent’s arguments implicate witness credibility, such matters

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
are best left to the trial court, which possesses the superior ability to assess witness demeanor and
credibility. In re Mota, 334 Mich App at 320.
As previously recognized by this Court, the record contains substantial evidence that
respondent was aware of her live-in boyfriend’s abuse of the children and failed to take protective
action. The record further establishes that respondent instructed CM to mislead authorities in order
to shield her boyfriend, indicating a prioritization of her relationship over the welfare of her
children. Respondent provides no persuasive rationale as to why this evidence is outweighed by
the children’s placement with relatives. Accordingly, respondent has not demonstrated that the
trial court’s best-interests findings were clearly erroneous. In re Atchley, 341 Mich App at 346.
Affirmed.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-- 4 of 4 --