in Re elam/hall/journey/walker Minors, 336140

Background

DHHS petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights after respondent’s brother, Edward Lo Journey, was caught sexually assaulting child AZJ in respondent’s home on May 25, 2016.
AZJ disclosed during a forensic exam that Journey had molested her for years and had previously told respondent and an aunt, who did not believe her; CPS had earlier recommended Journey move out of respondent’s home after allegations he abused a daughter/stepdaughter.
Although Journey was removed from respondent’s residence, respondent continued to allow him access to the children (visits, family events, transporting children) and remained financially dependent on him.
Evidence showed respondent did not follow up on offered resources after the 2016 incident and at times appeared more concerned about losing Journey’s financial support than keeping him away from the children.
The trial court found respondent knew of the risk Journey posed, failed to protect AZJ and other children, and that there was a reasonable likelihood of future harm if children were returned to respondent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination is warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (parent had opportunity to prevent sexual abuse but failed to do so and future abuse likely)	DHHS: Respondent knew of prior abuse allegations and AZJ’s disclosure yet continued to allow Journey access, so she failed to prevent abuse and future harm is likely.	Respondent: She first learned of AZJ’s abuse on May 25, 2016; her only error was allowing Journey access after earlier allegations but she did not know AZJ had disclosed earlier.	Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence supported (b)(ii).
Whether termination is warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care or custody)	DHHS: Respondent’s failure to safeguard AZJ shows she cannot provide proper care and is unlikely to be able to do so in a reasonable time.	Respondent: Argued insufficient evidence to meet clear-and-convincing standard for (g).	Court: Affirmed—(g) established by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether termination is warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood children will be harmed if returned)	DHHS: Given respondent’s conduct and continued access by Journey (and ability to reoffend upon release), there is a reasonable likelihood of future harm.	Respondent: Harm unlikely because Journey is imprisoned; she would protect children.	Court: Affirmed—(j) satisfied; prior failure to protect creates reasonable likelihood of future harm.
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	DHHS: Children need safety, stability, and permanence; respondent prioritized financial ties to abuser and failed to protect children; many children placed with fathers able to protect them.	Respondent: Children love her; at least one child asked that her rights not be terminated.	Court: Affirmed—preponderance shows termination was in children’s best interests.

Key Cases Cited

In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for termination and best-interest review)
In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich. App. 426 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (burden to establish termination grounds and best-interest framework)
In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (Mich. 2003) (clear-error standard and definition)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (requirement to prove at least one statutory ground)
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (Mich. 2000) (termination statutory framework)
In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence about one child is probative regarding treatment of other children)
In re AH, 245 Mich. App. 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (same principle regarding treatment of multiple children)
In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (termination may follow from failure to safeguard children)
In re Schadler, 315 Mich. App. 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (focus on child when assessing best interests)