In Re I K Jerelos Minor
358334
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 10, 2022Background
- Child placed with guardians from six weeks old; guardians obtained guardianship in May 2017. Mother voluntarily terminated parental rights; respondent (father) remained a party.
- Father filed a petition (Aug 2018) to terminate/modify the guardianship; the court thereafter awarded "reasonable" supervised parenting time to be agreed by the parties or litigated if they could not agree.
- Guardians filed a petition (Jan 10, 2020) to terminate the father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f) (guardian in place and parent failed to support and failed to visit/contact for 2+ years).
- Support orders required birth expenses and $90/month child support; father paid only $40 toward birth expenses and two payments totaling $140; he failed to notify Friend of the Court about employment changes and testified he was paid in cash.
- Under the parenting-time arrangement the father attended 18 visits, was on time for only 2, and missed or cancelled 21 scheduled visits; many absences were attributed to work or caregiving for his father.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) and (ii) and that termination was in the child’s best interests; father appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father "failed to substantially comply" with a support order for 2+ years under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) | Guardians: support order was in place; father paid only a de minimis amount and failed to comply for the relevant 2-year period | Father: could not comply because order was retroactive and initially set at $0, implying inability to pay; income was imputed and payments taken elsewhere | Court: Affirmed — with a support order in place, compliance (not ability) is dispositive; record showed failure to substantially comply for the 2-year period |
| Whether father "substantially failed" to visit, contact, or communicate for 2+ years under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(ii) and whether he had "good cause" | Guardians: father had reasonable supervised parenting opportunities but missed/cancelled most visits and was often late; no legally sufficient excuse | Father: scheduling rules and guardians’ practices impeded contact; work and caregiving for dying father justified absences | Court: Affirmed — father substantially failed to visit despite opportunity; scheduling requirements were reasonable and not legally sufficient to excuse the failures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (termination requires clear and convincing proof of at least one statutory ground)
- In re Keillor, 325 Mich. App. 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (appellate review of statutory findings is for clear error)
- In re Medina, 317 Mich. App. 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court credibility determinations merit deference)
- In re SMNE, 264 Mich. App. 49 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (when a support order exists, the issue is substantial compliance with that order)
- In re Martyn, 161 Mich. App. 474 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) ("substantial failure" to visit cannot be reduced to a fixed numerical threshold)
- In re Hill, 221 Mich. App. 683 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997) (disjunctive statutory phrasing means ability to visit, contact, or communicate may be satisfied by any one act)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) ("good cause" means a legally sufficient or substantial reason)
- Macomb County Dep’t of Social Servs. v Westerman, 250 Mich. App. 372 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (parental duty to support exists independently of termination proceedings)