In Re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch Minors
340 Mich App 326
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Children removed in 2017 after allegations of medical neglect and inadequate supervision (mother, partner, and unstable home; ASJ has serious medical needs; MSJ failure to thrive).
- Mother (respondent) demonstrated difficulty administering ASJ’s medications, missed MSJ feedings, missed many supervised-visitation sessions, and struggled to follow through with mental-health and substance‑abuse services.
- A psychological evaluation indicated intellectual/mental‑health limitations and a poor prognosis for independent parenting; parenting skills did not progress to unsupervised visits despite multi-year services.
- Records showed domestic‑violence incidents in the household, but the record primarily established the mother as a victim rather than a proven perpetrator.
- The trial court terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); the mother appealed, arguing insufficiency of the evidence supporting termination.
Issues
| Issue | DHHS's Argument | Jackisch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue and will not be rectified) | Mother failed to rectify medical‑neglect and supervision problems despite >3 years of services; children have special needs and need permanency | Mother claimed she participated in services and improved; trial evidence insufficient to show conditions continued | Held: Affirmed. Court found pervasive failures (medication, missed feedings, poor parenting skills) and no reasonable likelihood of rectification in a reasonable time. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care/custody) | Mother could not safely supervise or meet children’s needs and would not be able to within a reasonable time | Mother contested sufficiency, pointing to some service completion and love for children | Held: Affirmed. Court credited testimony showing inability to provide proper care (poor supervision, missed appointments, unsuitable responses to behavior). |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned) | Mother’s conduct and incapacity posed a realistic risk of harm given children’s complex needs and behavior | Mother disputed that risk and argued improvements | Held: Affirmed. Totality of evidence supported reasonable likelihood of harm if children returned. |
| Whether trial court erred by relying on domestic violence as a basis for termination | DHHS pointed to household domestic‑violence history as relevant to safety and stability | Mother argued record shows she was primarily a victim and not proved to be a perpetrator; victimhood alone cannot support termination | Held: Trial court erred to the extent it relied on mother being a perpetrator; but error was harmless because other statutory grounds independently supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120 (discussing standard for termination and clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35 (review standard for best‑interests determination)
- In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286 (clear‑error standard for factual findings)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444 (only one statutory ground for termination need be proved)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253 (courts may consider totality of evidence, not only recent improvement)
- In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270 (victimhood from domestic violence cannot alone justify termination)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30 (parental conduct that harms or exposes children to harm may justify termination)