in Re H M Hoskins Minor, 338589

Respondent is the mother of five young children; DHHS previously removed two children (JH, DH) in 2011 and terminated respondent’s parental rights to them in 2013 after finding she abused marijuana instead of treating her bipolar disorder and repeatedly abandoned the children.
HMH (born Sept. 13, 2013) was placed with guardians to avoid removal; respondent largely did not visit for 18 months and HMH was raised by others until age three.
Subsequent births: KH (2015) was taken into DHHS custody after respondent tested positive for marijuana and respondent’s rights to KH were later terminated; HH (2016) was also taken into custody and an Oakland County proceeding was opened.
While the Oakland matter was pending respondent’s mother ceased guardianship after a physical altercation, HMH came into DHHS care and Wayne County sought termination of respondent’s parental rights. Respondent pleaded to jurisdiction and to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i).
At the best-interests hearing respondent had a recent, brief start of prescribed medication and therapy but had long-term marijuana use (20 positive tests prior to April), weak bonding with HMH, problematic parenting during visits, and a history of failing to engage with offered services. The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights to HMH, finding termination in the child’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination is supported under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) (prior terminations and unsuccessful rehabilitation)	DHHS: prior terminations of respondent’s rights to siblings and prior unsuccessful rehabilitative efforts satisfy (3)(i)	Respondent: challenges various statutory factors cited by the court (but pleads to (3)(i) and concedes it on appeal)	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports termination under (3)(i) due to prior terminations and failed services
Whether the court relied on additional statutory grounds improperly	Respondent: contends other statutory grounds cited were erroneous	DHHS: only one statutory ground required; additional grounds unnecessary	Court: Moot — only one ground needed; challenges to others are futile
Whether termination was contrary to HMH’s best interests	Respondent: recent engagement with medication/therapy argues for reunification	DHHS: child needs stability; respondent’s mental-health history, marijuana use, weak bond, poor parenting, and HMH’s progress in foster care favor termination	Court: Affirmed — preponderance of evidence shows termination is in the child’s best interests

In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (application of waiver when parent concedes ground)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (standard for termination and admissible evidence at initial disposition)
In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (standard of review for factual findings in termination cases)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (clear-error standard and best-interests considerations)
In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (clarification of clear-error review)
In re Gach, 315 Mich. App. 83 (requirement that prior rehabilitation attempts be unsuccessful under (3)(i))
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interests factors: bond, parenting ability, need for permanency)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (additional best-interests considerations: caseplan compliance, visitation, child well-being)
In re AH, 245 Mich. App. 77 (mental-health history as relevant to best interests)
In re Foster, 285 Mich. App. 630 (comparative advantages of foster placement)
In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich. App. 49 (relevance of time in care to permanency analysis)
In re Schadler, 315 Mich. App. 406 (focus on the child in best-interests review)