in Re Hart Minors
332435
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Mother (respondent) and father have four children; two minors (HH and DH) removed after chronic neglect/supervision failures and safety incidents (e.g., child burned in unsupervised bonfire).
- Family had repeated CPS involvement in Florida and Michigan; children exhibited delinquency, poor hygiene, aggression exposure while in respondent’s home.
- DHHS removed HH and DH in Nov 2014 and provided services (counseling, parenting classes, supervised visits, housing/employment/budgeting requirements) over ~15 months.
- DHHS filed supplemental petition in Feb 2016 alleging respondent failed to benefit from services, missed/behaved poorly at visits, failed to provide proof of employment/housing/budgeting, and would not acknowledge responsibility for removal.
- Trial court found clear and convincing statutory grounds for termination (cited MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),(c)(ii),(g),(j)) and terminated parental rights; mother appealed only the best-interests finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | DHHS: mother failed to benefit from services; children improved in foster care and need permanency/stability | Mother: court failed to properly consider Dr. Berg’s favorable opinion and did not make specific/findings or analyze children separately | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence termination served children’s best interests |
| Whether trial court improperly discounted Dr. Berg’s report | DHHS: report was suspect given respondent’s inaccurate self-reporting to evaluator | Mother: Dr. Berg’s opinion supports preservation of parental rights | Court considered report but reasonably questioned its validity due to respondent’s inaccurate self-reporting; no error |
| Whether court made adequate factual findings on best interests | DHHS: trial court made detailed statutory and best-interests findings | Mother: findings were insufficiently specific | Court’s findings (over ten transcript pages) were detailed and distinct; no error |
| Whether court failed to consider each child separately | DHHS: children’s interests did not significantly differ to require separate analyses | Mother: court erred by not evaluating HH and DH individually | Court: separate analyses unnecessary where interests did not significantly differ; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (standard of review and requirement to consider separate best-interests when children significantly differ)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (clear-error standard explained)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (2012) (factors for best-interests determination)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (focus on child’s needs in best-interests inquiry)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (2011) (only one statutory ground required to terminate parental rights)