in Re J J Blackwell Minor
338272
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Respondent (mother) has cognitive impairment and bipolar disorder; she stopped treatment around 2012 and refused to resume it.
- She previously lost parental rights to another child due to untreated mental-health issues and inability to parent.
- Baby JB (born Nov. 18, 2016) has significant medical needs (feeding tube, heart surgery, hemophilia, one functioning kidney) and was placed with the maternal aunt/uncle (the Ramirezes) after a prolonged NICU stay.
- DHHS found respondent’s housing unsafe, she failed to engage consistently in parenting time or medical appointments, and admitted she could not care for JB alone and would not take medication.
- At the initial dispositional hearing DHHS sought termination without providing reunification services; the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j).
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | DHHS/Other Party's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination at initial disposition without services was improper | DHHS should have provided services before terminating rights | Prior termination and respondent’s refusal to treat meant services were not required and termination could be sought at initial disposition | Court affirmed: DHHS not required to provide services where parent previously had rights terminated and will not engage in treatment; statutory grounds proven |
| Whether statutory grounds (g), (i), (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence | Respondent argued evidence insufficient, and lack of services undermined grounds | DHHS relied on prior termination, respondent’s untreated bipolar disorder, unsafe housing, inability to care for JB | Court affirmed: clear error standard not met; evidence supported (g), (i), and (j) |
| Whether termination was in JB’s best interests given relative placement | Respondent argued placement with adoptive maternal grandmother weighs against termination | DHHS/guardian argued JB’s medical needs, need for stability, respondent’s inability to parent made termination appropriate despite relative placement | Court affirmed: best-interests finding supported; court addressed relative placement and concluded termination served JB’s need for stability and safety |
| Whether respondent could regain custody within a reasonable time | Respondent suggested she could benefit from services and parenting classes | DHHS noted respondent refused medication/treatment and had not engaged in services or parenting consistently | Court affirmed: no reasonable expectation respondent could provide safe care within a reasonable time given refusal to treat and prior history |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (trial court may terminate parental rights when statutory grounds proven)
- In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (appellate standard of review for statutory termination grounds)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (clarifies when services may be excused and standard for best-interests showing)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interests factors: bond, parenting ability, need for permanency)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (placement with relatives weighs against termination and must be explicitly considered)