in Re D Crews Jr Minor
333615
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Child DC (b. Mar 17, 2011) was removed after respondent father strangled the child’s mother in Dec 2013 while DC was present; respondent pleaded guilty to assault by strangulation and began an MDOC sentence in Apr 2014.
- Petition filed Apr 9, 2014; dispositional order entered Nov 25, 2014; child remained in relative placement (grandparents) for the duration.
- Respondent participated in prison programs (AA/NA, a Bridges domestic-violence class) and completed assignments, but DHHS and its caseworker concluded he minimized the violence, failed to accept full responsibility, and did not internalize domestic-violence treatment.
- DHHS filed a termination petition (alleging MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g)); a prior termination petition was denied to give respondent further opportunity to complete domestic-violence class.
- At the May 11, 2016 termination hearing the court found respondent failed to benefit from domestic-violence services, the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist, and termination was in DC’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHHS could pursue termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) when (h) (incarceration >2 years) did not apply | Multiple grounds may be pled; (c)(i) and (g) are available here because termination was based primarily on failure to benefit from services, not solely incarceration | Mason requires (c)(i)/(g) be subsumed by (h) when (h) is at issue; if (h) cannot be met, DHHS may be barred from using (c)(i)/(g) | Court: DHHS may allege multiple grounds; Mason did not bar (c)(i)/(g) where termination was not based solely on incarceration and services/participation differ; petition was allowed |
| Admissibility: Whether trial court improperly relied on hearsay (history of domestic violence; termination report) | Evidence of respondent’s domestic-violence history was related to the adjudication ground, so MCR 3.977(H)(2) permitted admission without strict evidentiary rules; termination report was admitted without objection | Argued testimony and report contained inadmissible hearsay and lacked legally admissible foundation | Court: No reversible error; rules allowing relaxed evidence applied because termination grounds were related to adjudication; termination report was unobjected-to and partly contained respondent’s own statements |
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions continue; no reasonable likelihood of rectification) | DHHS: respondent minimized conduct, did not internalize domestic-violence treatment, lacked meaningful change after ~25 months, and child needed permanence | Respondent: completed Bridges and assignments; intended release and housing/employment plans; argues DHHS/ court misjudged benefit from services | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported (c)(i). Respondent minimized the choking incident, failed to show insight, had limited contact with DC, and conditions were unlikely to be rectified in a reasonable time |
| Best interests / permanency | DC bonded to grandparents; grandparents intend to adopt; child needs stability and permanence | Respondent opposed termination and claimed plans after release | Court: Termination was in DC’s best interests; adoption provides permanence and matches sibling’s legal status |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (Supreme Court) (explains interaction among subsections (h), (c)(i), and (g) and requires proper evaluation of future careability and relatives as placements)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (Court of Appeals) (discusses court rules on when a termination petition must be filed and evidentiary scope when relatives provide care)
- In re Mays, 490 Mich 993 (Supreme Court) (addresses when legally admissible evidence is required for termination based on circumstances "new or different" from adjudication)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 139 (Court of Appeals) (standard for reviewing statutory termination grounds)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253 (Court of Appeals) (upholds termination under (c)(i) where no meaningful change occurred)
- In re Sours, 459 Mich 624 (Supreme Court) (clarifies the clear-error standard and appellate review language)