in Re hamminga/long Minors
334147
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- DHHS removed MH and JL multiple times for mother’s methamphetamine use and domestic violence; earlier removals occurred in 2006–08 and 2010–11; children were removed again in August 2015 after reports that mother and associates were using methamphetamine in the home.
- From Aug 2015–May 2016 mother generally cooperated and completed services but tested positive for methamphetamine in Jan, Mar (twice), and May 2016 and lied about some positive tests; last positive was 22 days before the termination hearing.
- Father had minimal contact: exercised parenting time once (Oct 2015), then ceased cooperation and was incarcerated March 2016; he did not comply with services or maintain contact with JL.
- Trial court found statutory grounds to terminate mother’s rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j), and father’s rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), and (j); it also found termination to be in the children’s best interests and ordered termination.
- Trial court emphasized repeated relapses after prior reunifications, psychological harm to MH (PTSD and a disturbing song MH wrote), lack of parental benefit from services, strained or minimal parent-child bonds, and the children’s need for permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence established statutory grounds to terminate mother’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) | Mother: temporary compliance and brief sobriety (Aug 2015–Jan 2016) showed ability to provide care | DHHS: repeated meth use, positive drug tests, prior removals and services, and harm to children show failure to provide care and no reasonable expectation of improvement | Affirmed: (3)(g) established; court need not decide additional ground (j) because one ground sufficed |
| Whether statutory grounds supported termination of father’s rights | Father: (not contested on appeal) | DHHS: ceased cooperation, did not benefit from services, absent and incarcerated, unable to care for JL | Affirmed: (g) (and other grounds) supported termination |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests and required what burden of proof | Respondents: argued trial court erred; suggested higher standard and that relative placements weigh against termination | DHHS: preponderance standard applies to best-interest; children need permanency; relatives’ placement does not preclude adoption or permanency analysis | Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interests; best-interest shown by preponderance per In re Moss |
| Whether DHHS failed to provide required services by not offering conjoint therapy mother requested | Mother: DHHS should have offered conjoint therapy recommended by MH’s psychological evaluation | DHHS: only required to provide reasonable services; conjoint therapy was conditional on both mother’s sobriety and MH’s progress, and therapist disapproved of conjoint therapy | Rejected: no error; DHHS not required to provide every conceivable service, and conditions were unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341 (trial-court termination review and best-interest framework) (discusses standard of review and factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (parent’s failure to participate in and benefit from services is evidence parent cannot provide proper care) (supports use of service-plan compliance as ground for (3)(g))
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (preponderance standard applies to best-interest determination under MCL 712A.19b(5)) (resolves burden-of-proof question for best-interest phase)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (factors for best-interest inquiry) (lists bonds, parenting ability, need for permanency, stability)