in Re B Hadd Minor
337097
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Child removed after birth due to marijuana exposure; parents admitted underlying allegations and child remained in care ~2 years.
- Mother: long history of substance abuse and mental-health issues; tested positive for THC while pregnant; sporadic/insufficient participation in counseling and psychiatric evaluation; continued marijuana use; hostile behavior; minimal progress on services.
- Father: used medical marijuana but his registry card expired; refused/failed to cooperate with recommended psychological re-evaluation, counseling, and home visits; minimal participation in services; aggressive behavior noted.
- Trial court terminated both parents’ rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), (j), and (l); appellate court held § 19b(3)(l) unconstitutional but found other grounds sufficient.
- Court also found termination was in the child’s best interests because parents had not remedied conditions, lacked ability to provide stability, and the foster home offered permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination established by clear and convincing evidence | Petitioners: parents failed to rectify conditions, did not benefit from services, and posed risk to child (grounds under § 19b(3)(c)(i),(ii),(g),(j)) | Parents: contested factual findings; father invoked MMMA protection; challenged evidentiary bases | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i),(c)(ii),(g),(j); § 19b(3)(l) error harmless |
| Whether MMMA barred termination for father | Petitioners: MMMA protection does not apply here because card expired and removal related to child’s exposure and parents’ noncompliance | Father: termination impermissible due to medical-marijuana use | Rejected: father’s card expired and termination premised on noncooperation, risk, and failure to complete services, not protected MMMA conduct |
| Whether evidence/admissibility rules required separate hearings for "new" grounds | Petitioners: trial court need not hold separate hearings; MCR 3.977(F)/(H) set evidentiary standards | Father: court should have used only legally admissible evidence for new grounds and held separate hearings | Rejected: no plain error; counsel had stipulated/waived objections; legally admissible-evidence standard applies only to truly new circumstances and one proven ground sufficed |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Petitioners: child needed permanency and parents could not provide stability within reasonable time | Parents: argued ability to parent (supervised visits) and lack of other neglect evidence | Affirmed: evidence of minimal progress, ongoing substance/mental-health issues, and foster home stability supported best-interests finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (2011) (one statutory ground suffices for termination)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (clear-error standard for statutory-ground findings)
- In re Gach, 315 Mich. App. 83 (2016) (declaring MCL 712A.19b(3)(l) unconstitutional)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (parent’s failure to benefit from services supports §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j))
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (best-interests factors: bond, parenting ability, need for permanency)
- In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (2014) (plain-error review for unpreserved termination issues)
- In re SLH, 277 Mich. App. 662 (2008) (jurisdictional rulings generally must be directly appealed; no collateral attack after supplemental termination petition)
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich. 426 (1993) (jurisdictional challenge rules)
- In re Mitchell, 485 Mich. 922 (2009) (exceptions when plea not accompanied by advisals about later use in termination)
- People v Carter, 462 Mich. 206 (2000) (stipulation/waiver to evidence admission)