in Re Jones Minors, 335232

Background

In 2015 a trial court terminated respondent-mother’s parental rights to two daughters; this Court affirmed most issues but remanded for explicit best-interest consideration of placement with the aunt/uncle. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated both the Court of Appeals decision and the termination/adjudication orders and remanded for a new adjudication.
On remand (2016) a jury found statutory grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b) based primarily on the mother’s conduct and the children’s circumstances as of the September 2014 removal.
The trial court then held a dispositional hearing and terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g), and (j).
Respondent argued on appeal (1) petitioner improperly relied only on pre-2014 evidence of her conduct rather than evidence of her 2016 circumstances; (2) the court erred by denying reinstatement of supervised visitation after remand; and (3) petitioner should have provided additional reunification services post-remand.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held reliance on evidence from the time of the 2014 petition was proper for adjudication, suspension of parenting time was permissible while a termination petition was pending, and additional services were not required given termination was petitioner’s goal and respondent previously failed to participate or benefit from services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Petitioner)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
Whether jurisdiction could be based solely on respondent’s pre-2014 conduct	Evidence at time of filing (Sept 2014) is probative of present statutory grounds for jurisdiction	Adjudication required evidence of respondent’s fitness at time of the 2016 trial; pre-2014 evidence was stale	Court: Proper to rely on circumstances at time of petition; jury verdict supported by preponderance of evidence
Whether additional reunification services were required after Supreme Court remand	Services not required when termination is the agency’s goal and agency can justify not providing more	Remand created a need for new services because no new allegations arose post-2014	Court: No error—termination was petitioner’s goal and prior efforts sufficed to justify not providing further services
Whether supervised parenting time should have been reinstated after remand	Suspension permissible while termination petition pending; court relied on recent therapist/foster-parent observations showing harm	Reinstatement necessary to show current parent-child bonds and rebut reliance on past conduct	Court: Suspension was authorized and supported by evidence; not clearly erroneous to deny visitation
Whether newly raised claims (ineffective assistance; reliance on past conduct for termination) in reply brief are reviewable	N/A	Issues raised first in reply brief	Court: Declined to consider issues raised in reply brief; not properly before the Court

Key Cases Cited

In re Jones, 499 Mich 862 (Mich. 2016) (Supreme Court vacated prior appellate and trial orders and remanded for new adjudication)
In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (Mich. 2014) (describes adjudicative vs dispositional phases and jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2)
Polkton Charter Twp v Pellegrom, 265 Mich App 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (preservation rule for appellate review)
In re MU, 264 Mich App 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (statute speaks in present tense; courts may examine child’s situation at time petition was filed)
In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (agency must justify decision not to provide reunification services when not offered)
In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (Mich. 2010) (failure to provide services can impede termination findings)
In re Laster, 303 Mich App 485 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (suspension of parenting time after filing termination petition is presumptively in child’s best interest)
Bronson Methodist Hosp v MI Assigned Claims Facility, 298 Mich App 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (reply briefs limited to rebuttal; new issues in reply are not preserved)