in Re Jackson Minors, 333854

Background

Children were removed after emergency hearing due to respondent mother’s untreated mental-health issues, noncompliance with prescribed medication, poor parenting/decision-making, and safety concerns including alleged sexual abuse by the then-boyfriend.
Court took jurisdiction; respondent received reunification services but was inconsistent in counseling attendance, medication compliance, and cooperating with evaluations (refused IQ test, refused to discuss physical-health concerns).
Respondent periodically left children overnight at her father/stepmother’s home, a household previously denied placement; the children were later present when the stepmother’s household assaulted respondent.
Respondent showed some parenting progress in supervised programs but children reacted poorly in the home; respondent resisted safety recommendations and posted sensitive information about one child’s sexual abuse online.
Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); respondent appealed challenging reasonable efforts, statutory grounds, and best interests.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether petitioner made reasonable reunification efforts	Agency provided abundant, appropriate services and reasonable efforts were made	Services were inadequate to address respondent’s barriers	Unpreserved on appeal; plain-error review — court found services sufficient and respondent failed to request additional services
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i))	Conditions leading to adjudication persisted and unlikely to be rectified timely	Respondent claimed progress toward reunification and blamed a later assault for reversal	Court held clear and convincing evidence supported (c)(i) because respondent remained noncompliant and made unsafe choices
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (MCL 712A.19b(3)(g))	Respondent failed to provide proper care/custody and was unlikely to be able to do so soon	Respondent cited employment and partial financial improvements	Court upheld (g) — ongoing parenting, discipline, medication, and financial deficiencies supported finding
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (MCL 712A.19b(3)(j))	There was a reasonable likelihood the children would be harmed if returned based on respondent’s conduct/capacity	Respondent argued children’s reactions were temporary and not dispositive	Court concluded (j) was met given respondent’s decision-making, unsafe placements, and mental-health noncompliance
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Children needed permanency, stability, and therapy; bond with mother was unhealthy (parentification of older child)	Respondent argued bonds and some therapeutic progress favored reunification	Preponderance supports best interests finding; court found termination appropriate to provide stability and end children’s uncertainty

Key Cases Cited

In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (respondent’s duty to participate in offered services)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (Mich. 2010) (agency must afford reasonable opportunity to participate in services or termination may be improper)
Tallman v. Milton, 192 Mich. App. 606 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) (reasonable efforts requirement after temporary jurisdiction)
Kern v. Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich. App. 333 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (plain-error review for unpreserved issues)
In re Trejo, Minors, 462 Mich. 341 (Mich. 2000) (standard of review for termination findings)
In re Dearmon, 303 Mich. App. 684 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Olive/Metts, Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (factors for best-interests analysis)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (best-interests burden and standard)
Houghton v. Keller, 256 Mich. App. 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (insufficient appellate argument where appellant fails to specify needed services)