in Re Jsm Grasty Minor, 338681

Background

JG, born April 1, 2016, was removed at 11 days old after mother (respondent) was arrested for purchasing methamphetamine precursors; child placed with a relative then foster parents.
Respondent admitted jurisdictional facts, a history of substance abuse, mental-health issues, prior terminations of parental rights to four older children, lack of housing and employment, and pending criminal matters.
DHHS provided a year of services (housing assistance, counseling referrals, intensive in‑home support, parenting classes and supervised visitation); respondent attended some counseling and visits but did not follow through on psychiatric referrals, obtaining ID/Medicaid, steady employment, or stable housing.
Respondent missed visits, lived in a different county than the child, was re‑arrested and jailed during the case, and testified at the termination hearing that she had newly acknowledged mental‑health needs and could improve with three months of additional time.
The circuit court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), finding she had not benefited from services, lacked housing and employment, and was unlikely to rectify conditions within a reasonable time; the court also found termination was in the child’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS)	Defendant's Argument (Respondent)	Held
Whether DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts	DHHS argues it promptly and adequately offered services, accommodated requests, and assisted with housing, employment, and transportation	Respondent argues DHHS failed to accommodate her mental‑health needs, delayed evaluations/services, and did not help sufficiently with housing/employment/transportation	Court held DHHS made reasonable efforts; delays were largely due to respondent’s actions and service choices
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven	DHHS argues conditions leading to adjudication persisted and parent could not provide care within a reasonable time (c)(i), failed to provide custody (g), and risk of harm existed (j)	Respondent argues insufficient evidence to prove the statutory grounds	Court found clear and convincing evidence for (c)(i) and (g); termination supported (no error)
Whether termination was in child's best interests	DHHS argues child is bonded to foster family, is thriving, and needs permanency; respondent did not progress	Respondent argues she had an epiphany and could improve with more time; suggests guardianship	Court held termination was in child’s best interests given child’s stability, respondent’s inconsistent visitation and lack of progress; guardianship inappropriate for infant
Whether court should have adjourned hearing for more time	DHHS argues no good cause; respondent delayed services and failed to request adjournment	Respondent contends she needed additional time to show improvement and services were delayed by incarceration	Court held no adjournment required—respondent never requested one, delays were largely self‑inflicted, and additional time was unlikely to change outcome

Key Cases Cited

In re Rood, 483 Mich 73 (discusses role of service adequacy in termination analysis)
In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242 (parental duty to participate in provided services)
In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich 79 (ADA and Probate Code obligations to accommodate disabilities in reunification efforts)
In re DMK, 289 Mich App 246 (requirement that termination decisions be based on legally admissible evidence)
In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (standard of review and best‑interests burden)
In re Williams, 286 Mich App 253 (clarifies clear‑error standard for factual findings)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341 (procedural requirements and standard for termination under MCR 3.977)
In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35 (best‑interests inquiry and factors)
In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (factors trial court may consider in best‑interests analysis)
In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630 (consideration of foster placement advantages)
In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich App 49 (relevance of time in care to permanency decisions)
In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406 (focus on child’s interests over parent’s)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (standards for granting adjournments in protective proceedings)