in Re J D Butler Minor, 337525

Respondent previously had parental rights to six children terminated in Macomb County after serious physical abuse to those children, including a near-fatal subdural hematoma to one child; that termination was affirmed on appeal.
Respondent gave birth to JB on December 12, 2016; JB was removed at birth because of respondent’s CPS history and positive opioid test; petitioner filed for permanent custody.
At the adjudication respondent pleaded no contest to statutory grounds; a dispositional/best-interest hearing followed.
Evidence at the best-interest hearing: respondent visited appropriately and bonded with JB, had housing and some income assistance, expressed remorse and willingness to engage in services, but had not completed recent mental-health treatment or parenting classes and had not been fully forthcoming about her history.
CPS testified termination was appropriate given respondent’s prior history of child abuse, elevated risk factors on prior psychological testing, lack of demonstrated intensive mental-health treatment, unstable housing and unhealthy relationships; JB was thriving in foster placement.
The trial court found termination was not in JB’s best interests and ordered temporary wardship and provision of services; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding termination was in JB’s best interests and remanded for entry of an order terminating respondent’s parental rights.

Issue	Petitioner (DHHS) Argument	Respondent Argument	Held
Whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was in JB’s best interests	Termination is in JB’s best interests because respondent’s history of severe physical abuse, mental-health problems, lack of intensive treatment, unstable housing, and poor judgment create a high risk of future harm; JB is thriving in foster care	Respondent argued she had changed, bonded with JB, completed prior services in Wayne County, and had not been given a legitimate opportunity for services in this case	Court of Appeals held termination was in JB’s best interests and reversed the trial court’s refusal to terminate parental rights
Whether petitioner was required to provide reunification services before seeking termination	DHHS need not provide reunification services where termination is the agency’s goal	Respondent asserted lack of services undermined termination decision	Court rejected respondent’s services argument, citing that DHHS is not required to provide reunification services when termination is the goal

In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (discusses requirement to find statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence for termination)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (addresses best-interest standard and appellate review for termination)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (explains DHHS is not required to provide reunification services when termination is the agency’s goal)
In re AH, 245 Mich. App. 77 (parent’s treatment of one child is probative of propensity to abuse other children)