in Re Harris Minors, 331025

Background

DH (3 months) suffered severe brain injury from being shaken while in the sole care of respondent’s fiancé; DH now requires around‑the‑clock care and is profoundly disabled.
Children (KH and DH) were removed; KH placed with paternal great‑grandparents (relatives), DH with nonrelative foster parents.
Respondent knew of fiancé’s violent history and prior threats/assaults but left children in his care multiple times and maintained contact after his arrest, including writing him a supportive letter.
DHHS filed for termination of respondent’s parental rights in the initial petition; respondent received supervised visitation and no reunification services were provided.
Trial court found statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (g), and (j) proved by clear and convincing evidence and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests.
Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no clear error in the statutory‑grounds or best‑interest determinations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether statutory ground MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (child/sibling abused and parent failed to prevent; risk of future harm) is met	DHHS: Respondent knew of father’s violence, failed to protect children, and maintained contact with abuser — future risk exists	Respondent: She did not believe father caused DH’s injuries; she can protect children	Held: Proven. Court found respondent minimized abuse, maintained contact, and failed to prevent harm; clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (b)(ii).
Whether statutory ground MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care; no reasonable expectation to do so) is met	DHHS: Respondent’s conduct (leaving children with violent partner, minimizing danger) demonstrates anticipatory neglect and inability to provide proper care	Respondent: No prior CPS history; employed and could care for children	Held: Proven. Court found respondent’s actions and history showed failure to provide care and likelihood of future neglect.
Whether statutory ground MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood child would be harmed if returned) is met	DHHS: Respondent’s ongoing ties to abuser and poor judgment indicate likely future harm	Respondent: She no longer lives with father and claims she won’t reunite	Held: Proven. Court concluded respondent’s conduct created a reasonable likelihood of future harm despite father’s incarceration.
Whether termination was improper because respondent was not offered reunification services	Respondent: Lack of services denied opportunity to remedy issues	DHHS: Services unnecessary where termination sought in initial petition	Held: Denied. Court held reunification services not required when agency seeks termination in initial petition; termination still proper.

Key Cases Cited

In re Laster, 303 Mich. App. 485 (standard for termination; clear and convincing evidence)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (standard for best‑interest review)
In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (anticipatory neglect—treatment of one child probative of treatment of others)
In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich. App. 426 (termination may be warranted despite abuser’s incarceration when parent places relationship over children’s needs)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (reunification services not required when agency seeks termination in initial petition)
In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (discussion of when services are required)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (factors for best‑interest analysis; placement with relatives weighs against termination)
In re Jones, 286 Mich. App. 126 (use of psychological evaluation and history in best‑interest analysis)