In re Gonzales/Martinez
310 Mich. App. 426
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Two children (MG and HM) were removed after respondent’s boyfriend sexually assaulted them; children reported respondent disbelieved them and slapped HM.
- Respondent retained supervised parenting time but was observed coaching a child and was recommended for suspension of visits; she remained in contact with the boyfriend after his arrest.
- Respondent tested positive for cocaine multiple times, missed drug screens, twice hospitalized for overdose, and had inconsistent engagement with mental-health treatment; she also assaulted an elderly housemate and had pending criminal charges.
- During the proceedings respondent lived with an 83‑year‑old man who reported sexual involvement and supplied alcohol/pills; the children were placed with their aunt and uncle and were reported to be doing well.
- The Department petitioned to terminate parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (g), and (j); a referee found clear and convincing evidence for those grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the trial court adopted the findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) — parent failed to prevent child’s sexual abuse and child likely to be harmed if returned | Evidence shows respondent disbelieved children, stayed with accused, failed to prevent abuse | Termination not supported because alleged abuser is jailed/deportable, removing future risk | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence respondent failed to protect; risk is from parent’s unwillingness to protect, not only from abuser |
| Grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) — parent fails to provide proper care and no reasonable expectation of improvement | Respondent violated parent‑agency agreement, continued substance use, unstable housing, poor treatment engagement | Time (13 weeks) was short; improvements possible | Affirmed: evidence showed failure to comply and no reasonable expectation of adequate care within a reasonable time |
| Grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) — reasonable likelihood child harmed if returned | Evidence of respondent’s aggression, prior assault, slapping HM, children’s fear (one said respondent might kill him) | Respondent disputed severity/likelihood of harm | Affirmed: court found reasonable likelihood of harm based on conduct and mental‑health/substance issues |
| Best interests of the children | Children need safety, permanency, stability; relatives willing to adopt; guardianship rejected because relatives fear respondent | Respondent argued relative placement weighs against termination | Affirmed: preponderance of evidence showed termination served children’s need for finality, safety, and stability |
Key Cases Cited
- In re JK, 468 Mich 202 (2003) (standard for clear error and burden to prove grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich 331 (1989) (trial court’s advantage in assessing witness credibility)
- In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich App 111 (2000) (only one statutory ground need be proved to support termination)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (2013) (petitioner must prove best interests by preponderance of the evidence)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (2012) (placement with relatives generally weighs against termination)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) (trial court must consider relative placement under statutory framework)