in Re a M Patino Minor
336948
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Child AM removed after petition alleged respondent’s substance abuse during pregnancy and sibling born with drugs; respondent admitted prior substance abuse and a no-contest to cocaine use during pregnancy.
- AM was placed with DHHS in July 2015; respondent was incarcerated at times and missed court‑ordered contact and services after release in Dec 2015, resurfacing only when re‑incarcerated in March 2016.
- AM disclosed incidents of physical abuse (metal‑belt whipping; being encouraged to be hit) and later expressed he did not want to live with respondent; therapist reported attachment trauma and improvement in foster care but need for permanency.
- Petitioner moved to terminate parental rights under multiple statutory grounds (MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (h), (j), (m)).
- Trial court found several grounds proven, concluded termination was in AM’s best interests, and terminated respondent’s parental rights; respondent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether (b)(i) (parent caused physical abuse) supported termination | Petitioner: respondent knew of abuse and failed to prevent it, supporting termination for abuse‑related ground | Respondent: denied or challenged sufficiency of proof that she caused/was complicit in abuse | Court: Trial court erred to the extent it relied on (b)(i); evidence supported (b)(ii) (failure to prevent) not (b)(i) |
| Whether (c)(i)/(c)(ii) (conditions leading to adjudication persist / new conditions exist) supported termination | Petitioner: respondent’s substance history, failure to follow services, instability persist and new abuse allegations support (c) grounds | Respondent: initial petition didn’t concern AM; she participated in services | Court: (c)(i) and (c)(ii) proven by clear and convincing evidence; respondent’s claims rejected |
| Admissibility of child‑disclosure report (hearsay) supporting (c)(ii) | Petitioner: report admitted at hearing; counsel waived objections | Respondent: hearsay—insufficient lawful evidence | Court: counsel’s express no‑objection waived hearsay complaint; report may be considered |
| Whether (g), (h), (j), (m) supported termination and whether any errors were harmless | Petitioner: failure to provide care, extended incarceration, likelihood of harm, and prior voluntary termination support termination | Respondent: later jail services, potential early release, claimed bond with child, and contest to sufficiency on (j) and (m) | Court: (g) and (h) supported termination; (j) and (m) findings were erroneous as stated, but errors were harmless because other statutory grounds supported termination |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Petitioner: AM needs permanency, stability, and adoption prospects exist; respondent’s inconsistent contact and instability weigh against reunification | Respondent: prior appropriate care, close bond, special needs reduce adoptability | Court: Best‑interests finding affirmed — AM needed permanency and stability; termination appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (standard for reviewing statutory‑grounds findings and consideration of incarceration in termination cases)
- In re Martin, 450 Mich. 204 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Powers, 244 Mich. App. 111 (one statutory ground sufficient to uphold termination)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (parental change cannot be speculative where child would wait too long in foster care)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (failure to follow service plan supports § 19b(3)(g) and best‑interest considerations)
- In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (housing instability as factor under § 19b(3)(g))
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (factors for best‑interest analysis)