In re Hudson
294 Mich. App. 261
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DHS became aware of the minor children due to deplorable housing and allegations of sexual abuse by respondent against her 14-year-old biological son, A.
- Respondent pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving A and was sentenced to 9–30 years in prison.
- The trial court asserted jurisdiction and ultimately terminated respondent’s parental rights to all the minor children.
- Petitioner sought termination on multiple statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (h), (j), and (k)(ii), which the trial court found proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- Respondent argued against termination, including the interpretation of “sibling” for grounds (b)(i) and (k)(ii) given A was adopted out at birth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence | DHS contends all four bases were established. | Respondent argues no clear-and-convincing evidence for the bases. | Yes; grounds (b)(i), (h), (j), and (k)(ii) supported. |
| Whether 'sibling' includes the biological sibling for termination under (b)(i) and (k)(ii) | DHS posits A is a sibling to the other children (biological relation suffices). | Respondent asserts no legal relationship to the other children; not a sibling. | Biological sibling status supports termination under (b)(i) and (k)(ii). |
| Whether imprisonment supports termination under 712A.19b(3)(h) | DHS argues extended incarceration deprives children of a normal home with no reasonable expectation of timely reunification. | Respondent does not dispute long-term imprisonment, but argues this alone is insufficient. | Yes; substantial incarceration with resulting harm and lack of proper care supports termination. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | DHS emphasizes ongoing emotional harm, loss of trust, and need for safety, permanence, stability. | Respondent contends termination is not necessary; argues future potential for care. | Yes; termination was in the children’s best interests to provide safety and stability. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re JK, 468 Mich 202 (2003) (requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground)
- In re Archer, 277 Mich App 71 (2007) (standard for reviewing termination and best interests)
- In re LaFlure, 48 Mich App 377 (1973) (treats child protective proceedings as a continuous proceeding)
- People v Green, 228 Mich App 684 (1998) (avoidance of appellate error as a parachute)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) (incarceration alone not sole ground for termination; consideration of process)
- In re AH, 245 Mich App 77 (2001) (evidence of how a parent treats one child informs risk to others)
- In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286 (2004) (clear and convincing standard for termination findings)