In Re H I R Wardia Minor, 370861

Respondent’s prior two children were removed due to domestic violence and untreated mental health issues, with one child being abused by respondent's boyfriend, Michael Cottone.
Despite court orders prohibiting contact with Cottone due to his past abuse and a series of domestic violence incidents, respondent continued her relationship with him, married him, and had a child, HIRW.
In September 2021, after continuing instability and threats, the court ordered the immediate removal of HIRW, prompting respondent to flee to Mexico with the child; she was soon apprehended.
A parent-agency agreement was issued requiring respondent to engage in therapy, classes, and maintain no contact with Cottone; partial compliance led to temporary reunification, but violations soon followed, including unsupervised contact between HIRW and Cottone.
HIRW was again removed after respondent allowed unsupervised contact with Cottone and failed to inform DHHS of address changes; respondent also experienced mental health crises, including hospitalization for suicidal ideation.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights, finding statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); respondent appealed.

Issue	Respondent's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Statutory grounds for termination	Respondent complied with parent-agency agreement and external factors (medication) caused issues; GAL mischaracterized facts	Respondent’s continued contact with Cottone showed the underlying risks persisted and respondent failed to benefit from services	Sufficient evidence supported statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); appellate court affirmed termination
Best interests of the child	Motivations for Cottone contact were benign, and bond with child remained strong	Child’s safety and stability were jeopardized by ongoing relationship with Cottone; foster placement stable and prospective for adoption	Termination in child’s best interests due to need for permanence, safety, and stability
Effect of respondent’s medication on conduct	Lexapro negatively impacted respondent before 2023, influencing her behavior	Respondent’s behavior (including relationship with Cottone) continued after medication change; medication not causal	Court found behavior pattern unchanged regardless of medication; no clear error in not attributing conduct to medication
Whether GAL mischaracterized facts	GAL misstated facts about respondent’s actions and relationship with Cottone	GAL’s statements were supported by record; no material misrepresentation occurred	Court found no mischaracterization impacting decision

In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch, 340 Mich App 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (sets out clear-and-convincing standard for termination of parental rights)
In re Atchley, 341 Mich App 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (describes clear error standard for appellate review in termination cases)
In re Sanborn, 337 Mich App 252 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (defines clear error for factual findings at trial)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (addresses factors in best-interests analysis for child custody/termination)
In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (sets out broad considerations for best-interest determinations)