in Re J M C Gossman Minor
332521
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Respondent's parental rights to the child were terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g),(h),(j).
- Respondent used drugs during pregnancy and continued drug activity, including methamphetamine production, in the home."
- The child faced risk due to drug exposure and hazardous home conditions; the home had prior meth-related incidents and injuries to respondent.
- Respondent had prior and ongoing substance-abuse treatment attempts that failed to achieve sustained sobriety.
- Respondent was incarcerated from 29 months to 20 years at the time of termination, with no immediate arrangements for the child’s care; earliest release was over two years after termination.
- CPS testified respondent could not provide proper care and custody, and no services could further reunification, given the ongoing drug involvement and risk to the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds for termination were shown by clear and convincing evidence | Gossman argues issues lack clear support | Gossman contends grounds were not proven | No, grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | Gossman asserts best interests favored preserving the parent-child relationship | Gossman argues safety and stability concerns were overstated | Yes, termination was in the child’s best interests |
| Harmless error re: MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) as an additional ground | Gossman notes voluntary terminations of other children | Gossman maintains error if any | Harmless error; reliance on (i) was harmless given (g),(h),(j) substantiation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Laster, 303 Mich App 485 (2013) (clear error review for termination grounds; standard of review)
- In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648 (1992) (focus on whether imprisonment will deprive a normal home in the future; two-year consideration)
- In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (2014) (best-interests framework and factors for determining termination necessity)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (2013) (preponderance standard for best interests; weighing multiple factors)