in Re edwards/annear Minors
336475
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- DHHS petitioned in April 2015 to remove two children from respondent-mother for unsanitary/unsuitable housing, improper supervision, substance abuse, and a domestic violence incident in the children’s presence; respondent admitted the housing allegation.
- The trial court assumed jurisdiction and placed the children outside respondent’s care; respondent had ~18 months to participate in services aimed at reunification.
- Respondent’s participation was sporadic; she made more effort near case end but had not shown durable change in housing stability, anger management, or substance-abuse-related honesty.
- Evidence included ongoing marijuana use for much of the case, a recent short clean period, continued anger/outburst incidents (including assault on her aunt and dismissal from a program), employment instability, and repeated involvement with harmful romantic partners despite orders to avoid them.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j) and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests; respondent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DHHS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence under § 19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue) | Mother: She had made significant recent progress; early-case problems should not control | Court: Conditions (housing, substance use, anger/violence) persisted or lacked durable correction despite services | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported § 19b(3)(c)(i) |
| Whether statutory grounds existed under § 19b(3)(c)(ii) (other conditions after notice and opportunity) | Mother: Improved later in case; risk overstated | Court: Mother repeatedly pursued dangerous relationships, children reported abuse by mother’s boyfriends, and she failed to protect children despite recommendations | Affirmed — § 19b(3)(c)(ii) established |
| Whether parent failed to provide proper care or custody and could not within reasonable time (§ 19b(3)(g)) | Mother: Capable of employment and care going forward | Court: Spotty service compliance, unresolved anger issues, tenuous housing, job loss from outbursts, and impending newborn made restoration unlikely | Affirmed — § 19b(3)(g) established |
| Whether return would pose a reasonable likelihood of harm (§ 19b(3)(j)) | Mother: Recent therapy and medication showed progress | Court: Longstanding volatility, dismissal from programs, and history of exposing children to abusive partners created risk of emotional/physical harm | Affirmed — § 19b(3)(j) established; termination in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for proving statutory grounds for termination)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (Mich. 2000) (standard of review for termination findings)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (considerations for § 19b(3)(c) findings)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (duration and lack of progress relevant to likelihood of correction)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (service-plan noncompliance evidences inability to provide care and custody)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (§ 19b(3)(j) contemplates emotional harm as well as physical harm)
- In re Jackson, 199 Mich. App. 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (scope of conditions considered under § 19b(3)(c)(i))
- In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (deference to trial court credibility assessments)