in Re K M Kasben Minor, 333063

Background

Father (respondent) appealed termination of his parental rights to a minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), (j), and (n); mother voluntarily terminated her rights and is not part of the appeal.
DHHS petitioned after allegations tied to respondent’s criminal history, lack of contact with the child, a personal-protection order, threatening statements, and recent convictions for criminal sexual conduct.
Respondent was incarcerated and had multiple convictions for sexual assaults of minors; the acts underlying those convictions occurred in Leelanau County.
Circuit court terminated respondent’s rights, finding at least one statutory ground proven (MCL 712A.19b(3)(n) — enumerated sexual-offense convictions plus harm to the child) and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Respondent raised jurisdictional, counsel/self-representation, res judicata/collateral estoppel, sufficiency of statutory grounds, best-interests, and stay-pending-criminal-appeal arguments.

Issues

Issue	Kasben's Argument	DHHS/Court's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2 ("found within the county")	Leelanau lacked jurisdiction because child was not physically in county	Acts/omissions forming grounds occurred in Leelanau; respondent lived there and child would have resided there	Court: Jurisdiction proper; child "found within the county"
Right to self-representation or substitute counsel	Requested self-rep or new appointment; claimed original counsel inadequate	No showing of who would be called or good cause; substitution/self-rep would disrupt proceedings; he participated throughout	Court: Denial proper; no error
Res judicata / collateral estoppel from 2013 proceedings	Prior 2013 child-protection case bars current proceedings	New facts and changed circumstances (new convictions, PPO, continued lack of contact)	Court: Doctrines do not apply; dismissal denied
Sufficiency of statutory ground(s) for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3))	Argued statutory grounds not proven by clear and convincing evidence	Respondent convicted of enumerated sexual-offense statutes; witnesses testified continuing relationship would harm child	Court: At least MCL 712A.19b(3)(n) proven; termination permissible
Best interests of the child	Termination not necessary; stay pending criminal appeal would allow review	Criminal convictions, incarceration, risk to child, testimony that contact would be harmful, need for permanency favor termination	Court: Termination was in child's best interests
Stay of proceedings until resolution of criminal-appeal	Proceedings should be delayed until his criminal-appeal resolved	No authority supported stay; appeal denied previously for lack of merit	Court: No merit; no stay required

Key Cases Cited

In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (jurisdictional and credibility deference principles)
In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (due process review standard and appointment of counsel in child-protective cases)
In re CR, 250 Mich. App. 185 (right to counsel for indigent parents in child-protective proceedings)
People v Mack, 190 Mich. App. 7 (no right to counsel of choice by substitution request alone)
In re Conley, 216 Mich. App. 41 (good-cause standard for substitute counsel)
People v Anderson, 398 Mich. 361 (limits on self-representation where disruptive)
People v Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (need to show factual predicate for evidentiary claims)
In re Hamlet, 225 Mich. App. 505 (res judicata and change-of-facts rule)
Estes v Titus, 481 Mich. 573 (standard of review for legal doctrines)
Leahy v Orion Twp., 269 Mich. App. 527 (collateral estoppel elements)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (only one statutory ground required; best-interests review)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (clear-error standard and best-interests burden)
In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (definition of clearly erroneous)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interests factors)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (review standard for best-interests findings)
In re ASF, 311 Mich. App. 420 (abandonment of inadequately briefed arguments)