in Re D Adams Jr Minor
338496
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Respondent-mother had two prior children whose parental rights were involuntarily terminated and one child whose rights she voluntarily released; this proceeding sought termination of her rights to a fourth child.
- The child was born out of state; respondent concealed the birth, refused to provide relatives’ names/addresses, and deceived CPS during initial contacts.
- Evidence showed respondent had unstable housing, untreated mental-health issues, a history of domestic abuse while remaining with the abuser, inconsistent cooperation with services, and failure to complete required counseling.
- Respondent had not made meaningful improvements since the prior terminations and had a patchy employment history; the doctrine of anticipatory neglect was applied given prior proceedings.
- The child was placed in a pre-adoptive home where his medical needs were met and he was thriving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) was proven (failure to provide proper care and no reasonable expectation of improvement) | Petitioner: respondent’s ongoing instability, failure to benefit from services, and prior terminations show no reasonable expectation she can care for the child | Respondent: contested the sufficiency of evidence that she cannot provide care or improve within a reasonable time | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence established (g) given persistent problems and lack of progress |
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) was proven (reasonable likelihood of harm if child returned) | Petitioner: respondent’s conduct/capacity (mental health, domestic violence, deception) created a likelihood of harm | Respondent: disputed that her conduct created a concrete risk of harm warranting termination | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence established (j) based on conduct/capacity and prior proceedings |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Petitioner: child was safe, stable, and thriving in pre-adoptive placement; respondent had not improved | Respondent: argued termination was not warranted and that reunification should be prioritized | Court: Affirmed — termination was in the child’s best interests given stability of placement and respondent’s ongoing deficiencies |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Petitioner: findings supported by witness credibility and documentary evidence | Respondent: challenged credibility and sufficiency of evidence | Court: Not clearly erroneous — deference to trial court credibility determinations; findings adequately supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Beck, 488 Mich. 6 (2010) (statutory framework: single ground proven and best interests proven mandates termination)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (standards for termination and appellate review)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (2011) (termination review standards)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (clear-error standard for termination findings)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (definition of clear error in termination context)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (1989) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- In re LaFrance Minors, 306 Mich. App. 713 (2014) (anticipatory neglect doctrine in subsequent proceedings)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (best-interests factors and stability of placement)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (best-interests analysis)