in Re D M Davis Minor, 332799

Background

Father (respondent) appealed termination of his parental rights to a minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) and (g).
Trial court terminated rights after finding statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Respondent did not preserve several arguments below; appellate review for preserved issues was limited or for plain error where not preserved.
Key contested points on appeal: whether respondent retains a constitutional liberty interest that prevents termination, and whether petitioner made reasonable reunification efforts (housing, transportation, substance-abuse services).
Trial testimony showed respondent’s housing had been adequate until he discarded furniture, transportation assistance was limited to bus tickets, and there was evidence of ongoing substance and alcohol use despite treatment participation.
Court found petitioner provided reasonable efforts and that respondent’s constitutional-rights argument was foreclosed once statutory grounds were proved.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent’s constitutional liberty interest prevents termination	Petitioner: once statutory grounds proved, parental liberty interest in custody is limited	Respondent: has a protected constitutional right to parent that bars termination	Held: Parent’s liberty interest is not absolute; after clear-and-convincing proof of a statutory ground, the interest no longer includes custody (termination permitted)
Whether petitioner made reasonable reunification efforts	Petitioner: provided appropriate services, bus tickets, referrals; housing was appropriate	Respondent: petitioner should have helped find larger housing, provided more transportation and in‑home services, and more substance‑abuse support	Held: Services were reasonable under the circumstances; housing was adequate until respondent discarded furniture; claims inadequately briefed or unsupported
Whether court improperly considered length of foster care	Petitioner: reference to foster-care period highlighted time available to respondent	Respondent: court improperly considered the two‑year foster-care period	Held: Issue not raised in questions presented; any reference was not improper given context
Sufficiency of appellate briefing and preservation	Petitioner: some arguments not preserved; many appellate claims inadequately briefed	Respondent: raised multiple claims on appeal	Held: Several assertions were unpreserved or inadequately briefed; court declined to reverse on those bases

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest; state must provide fair procedures when severing parental rights)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (once statutory grounds for termination are proved by clear and convincing evidence, parental liberty interest no longer includes custody)
In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (2014) (parental right to custody is not absolute; state may separate neglectful parents from children)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (petitioner generally must make reasonable reunification efforts when a child is removed)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (reasonable efforts requirement and exceptions in aggravated circumstances)
Mitcham v. City of Detroit, 355 Mich. 182 (1959) (appellate briefs must explain and support claims; courts will not develop arguments for appellant)
People v. Albers, 258 Mich. App. 578 (2003) (appellate issues are limited to those within the questions presented)
In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (2014) (preservation rules; plain-error review when issues not raised below)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (discussing aspects of Trejo and termination standards)

Affirmed.