in Re Hicks Minors
335977
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Four minor children were removed after CPS found the home in squalor: extreme clutter, human and animal feces, lack of food, filthy clothing, and children appearing hungry and unclean.
- Youngest child later diagnosed with chlamydia after removal; no evidence of congenital transmission; mother was not cooperative in the STD investigation.
- Parents received services (parenting classes, counseling, housing and income requirements, supervised parenting time) over ~2.5 years but failed to remedy conditions or benefit from services.
- Mother provided fabricated documents and false contact information, remained dishonest about employment, housing, boyfriend status, and did not follow psychiatric treatment recommendations.
- Father lived in Ohio, had been absent since separation, offered inconsistent visitation and no steady financial support or verified suitable housing for four children.
- Trial court terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); parents appealed asserting insufficient evidence and that termination was not in children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions persist) | DHHS: conditions that caused adjudication persisted for >182 days and would not be rectified within a reasonable time | Parents: they participated in services and challenged sufficiency of proof | Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence showed unchanged conditions and low likelihood of correction in reasonable time |
| Whether statutory ground (g) — failure to provide proper care/custody — was established | DHHS: parents failed to benefit from plan and cannot provide proper care | Parents: claimed participation in programs and improvements | Court: Affirmed—failure to participate/benefit supported (g) |
| Whether statutory ground (j) — likelihood of harm if returned — was established | DHHS: parental conduct and incapacity made harm likely (squalor, STD, unmet needs) | Parents: disputed sufficiency and argued bonds and participation favored reunification | Court: Affirmed—evidence supported likelihood of harm if children returned |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | DHHS: children needed permanency, stability; foster placements met special needs | Parents: pointed to bonds and some compliance | Court: Affirmed—preponderance showed children’s need for safety, permanency, and stability outweighed parental bonds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (Michigan 2000) (standard for proving statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (Michigan 1989) (clear-error standard for reviewing factual findings)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (parent’s failure to participate in and benefit from services supports termination under (g) and (j))
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (factors for best-interest determination: bond, parenting ability, need for permanency, advantages of foster care)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation note; burden to prove best interests by preponderance)