In Re Carden Minors, 358053

Background

Six children (ages ~8–17) removed after chronic parental substance abuse and safety incidents; petition filed June 5, 2019 when children called 911 because they could not wake mother after a multi‑day drug binge.
Father was incarcerated at filing after a high‑speed chase and stabbing; long history of intermittent incarceration and criminality, later charged with murder in 2021 and remains jailed.
Children lived for a time with Samuel Compton, a known registered sex offender; while in his home, he sexually abused at least one child (TCC).
Children placed with relatives/foster families and thrived; parents completed some services but exhibited ongoing substance use, unsafe conduct, and problematic behavior during supervised visits.
Mother had longstanding substance‑use history dating to adolescence, participated in treatment but continued to test positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, and alcohol near the termination hearing; father continued criminal activity and substance use, exhibited violent/angry behavior, and could not complete required evaluations.
The circuit court terminated both parents’ rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j) (and also (g) as to father); parents appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence and best‑interest finding.

Issues

Issue	DHHS / Petitioner’s Argument	Mother/Father’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination of mother under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j)	Mother’s longstanding substance abuse and failure to remediate conditions after extensive services made rectification within a reasonable time unlikely; parenting failures and placing children with a sex offender showed risk of future harm.	Mother pointed to participation in services, excluded earlier drug tests, employment, and emotional bond with children; argued insufficient admissible evidence of ongoing substance use and risk.	Affirmed: court found clear and convincing evidence of continued substance use, failure to benefit from services, unsafe parenting, and likely future harm.
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination of father under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j)	Father’s ongoing criminality, recurrent substance use, violent temper, inability to complete evaluations, and absence via incarceration made rectification and provision of proper care unlikely and posed risk of harm.	Father challenged sufficiency of evidence and argued the children’s bond and parents’ efforts weighed against termination.	Affirmed: evidence supported all three statutory grounds; risk of harm and inability to provide care were established.
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Children had experienced significant trauma, improved and stabilized in relative placements, did not want to return, and needed permanency; foster/relative caregivers were willing to adopt and support contact if appropriate.	Parents emphasized bonds with children and desire for reunification.	Affirmed: preponderance of evidence showed termination served each child’s need for safety, stability, and permanency.

Key Cases Cited

In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (Mich. 2000) (clear‑and‑convincing standard for statutory termination grounds)
In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (Mich. 2009) (appellate review standard for termination findings)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (clear‑error standard and fact‑finding deference)
In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of clear error in termination context)
In re DMK, 289 Mich. App. 246 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (requirement of legally admissible evidence for supplemental‑petition grounds)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (best‑interest factors for termination)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (additional best‑interest considerations: placement with relatives, visitation, adoption potential)
In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad Minors, 305 Mich. App. 623 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate review of best‑interest findings)