in Re K C Scruggs Minor
332542
Mich. Ct. App.Jan 10, 2017Background
- Mother admitted she sexually abused her two-week-old son by placing his penis in her mouth twice.
- Child removed; petitioner sought termination of parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ix).
- Mother has long-standing serious mental-health diagnoses (schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, OCD) with multiple hospitalizations and a history of stopping medications, including during pregnancy and around the time of the assault.
- Mother was prescribed antipsychotic medication postpartum but did not take it as directed; her affect and history suggested instability and risk of relapse if she discontinued medication.
- Mother showed inconsistent parenting intent (was found discarding baby supplies and saying she could not care for the child shortly after the incident).
- Trial court terminated parental rights; mother appealed. Appeals court affirmed, finding statutory grounds proven and termination in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination (sexual abuse and failure to provide proper care) | Petitioner: admission of sexual abuse plus mother’s unstable mental health satisfied MCL 712A.19b grounds | Respondent: harm was minimal/no physical injury and not an aggravating circumstance; could overcome poor judgment | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (b)(i), (g), (j), and (k)(ix) due to admitted sexual abuse and mental-health-related inability to provide proper care |
| Emotional vs. physical harm under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) | Petitioner: sexual assault could cause emotional harm; treatment reflects future risk | Respondent: no physical injury; future harm speculative; could change behavior | Affirmed: ‘‘harm’’ includes emotional harm; repeated assault showed risk of future harm |
| Requirement of reunification efforts | Petitioner: statutory exceptions bar reunification efforts when parent sexually abused the child | Respondent: should have received reasonable reunification services | Affirmed: petitioner not required to provide reunification because respondent sexually abused the child (statutory exception) |
| Best interests (bond, relative placement) | Petitioner: child’s safety outweighs any bond; relative placement does not preclude termination | Respondent: relative placement and possible bond weigh against termination | Affirmed: court considered relative placement and bond; found inadequate stability and risk of abuse, so termination was in child's best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (standard for proving statutory grounds and best-interest determination)
- In re Jones, 286 Mich. App. 126 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural standard for ordering termination when statutory grounds established)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for termination findings)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (harm includes emotional harm for MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) analysis)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (reasonable efforts and exception when parent sexually abuses child)
- In re Olive/Metts, Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court must explicitly address relative placements at termination hearing)