in Re Hl Sanders Minor
334028
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 6, 2017Background
- Child (age 2 at removal) was medically fragile (severe heart condition, failure to thrive) and was left at respondent’s sister’s home in Jan 2014 without medications or provisions; court took jurisdiction after respondent pled no contest.
- Parent/agency plan required psychological evaluation, individual therapy, parenting classes, substance‑abuse supports including drug screens, stable housing, employment, consistent contact with the agency, and law‑abiding behavior.
- Respondent completed a psychological evaluation and parenting classes and obtained employment and housing, but repeatedly failed to follow the evaluation’s recommendation for ongoing therapy, attended therapy sporadically, and did not produce therapists’ progress reports.
- Respondent submitted only 22 of 49 requested drug screens in 2015 and had multiple positive alcohol screens; she also inconsistently took prescribed mood‑stabilizing medication.
- Respondent’s contact and engagement were sporadic and sometimes hostile; she missed many of the child’s medical/dental appointments, declined to visit during the child’s post‑surgery hospitalization, and domestic‑violence incidents led to supervised visitation. The child bonded primarily with the sister (prospective adoptive caregiver).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) was established (conditions continuing >182 days and unlikely to be rectified) | Conditions that led to adjudication (instability, untreated mental health/substance issues, inability to care for medical needs) persisted despite services; no reasonable likelihood of rectification given child’s age | Respondent argued conditions were rectified or could be rectified within a reasonable time; she claimed compliance with services | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (3)(c)(i) because respondent failed to remedy key conditions (therapy, medication compliance, drug screens, stability) |
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) were established (failure to provide proper care; likelihood of harm if returned) | Service‑plan noncompliance and prior abandonment showed inability to provide proper care and a likelihood of harm on return | Respondent maintained she engaged in services and could provide care | Court held (g) and (j) satisfied: respondent failed to comply with plan, remained unstable, and return posed risk of harm |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Permanent placement with the sister who provided stability and met child’s special needs was in child’s best interests | Respondent argued bond was parental and she was in compliance and could provide emotionally/financially | Court held by preponderance termination served child’s best interests: child’s primary bond was with sister, respondent lacked consistent engagement, stability, and capacity to meet needs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sours, 459 Mich. 624 (clarifies review for clear error in termination findings)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (clear‑and‑convincing proof required for statutory termination grounds)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (trial court’s credibility findings afforded deference)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (service‑plan noncompliance is evidence of inability to provide proper care and custody)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (best‑interest standard: preponderance of evidence)
- In re Laster, 303 Mich. App. 485 (standard of review for best‑interest determinations)
- In re Jones, 286 Mich. App. 126 (parenting ability is relevant to best interests)
- In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (child’s bond to parent considered in best‑interest analysis)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (child safety and well‑being factored into best interests)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (need for a permanent, safe, stable home considered in best interests)