in Re K R Gallitz Minor
337088
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- Child (K.R.G.) lived with maternal grandparents (petitioners) as guardians after mother left child in their care; grandparents sought termination so they could adopt.
- Respondent-father signed an acknowledgment of paternity after petition filed but had minimal contact: moved to Nevada for ~3 years, sent little or no support, and on brief visits lacked necessities or refused to return the child once.
- Mother reported respondent’s past physical abuse toward her and feared for the child’s safety; respondent was not on the birth certificate initially.
- Court-ordered psychological evaluation found respondent marginally cooperative, functioning at an adolescent level, unwilling to accept responsibility, lacking bond with child, and likely requiring extensive services to parent safely.
- Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care, no reasonable expectation to do so) and (j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned); it found termination was in the child’s best interests.
- On appeal, respondent challenged jurisdiction and best-interests findings but failed to preserve/adequately brief those issues; court reviewed statutory-ground findings and affirmed termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Trial court properly assumed jurisdiction based on failure to provide care/abandonment and existing guardianship | Respondent argued trial court erred in asserting jurisdiction | Not addressed on merits — issue not preserved on appeal; court declined review |
| Statutory ground: MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide care; no reasonable expectation) | Clear-and-convincing evidence showed respondent failed to provide care/support and could not do so within a reasonable time | Respondent asserted ability to care (stable residence/finances) | Affirmed: evidence supported finding of failure to provide care and no reasonable expectation of improvement |
| Statutory ground: MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm) | Testimony and evaluator showed risk of physical/emotional harm from lack of care, past domestic violence, and respondent’s deficits | Respondent argued minimal contact meant no basis to show likely harm | Affirmed: court found reasonable likelihood of harm if child returned to respondent |
| Best interests | Termination served child’s interests: no bond with father, lack of stable home/employment, father’s unwillingness to address deficits | Respondent challenged best-interests ruling but did not develop argument on appeal | Affirmed as to best interests — respondent abandoned argument on appeal by failing to brief merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Anderson, 284 Mich. App. 11 (2009) (issue preservation for appeal)
- People v Coy, 258 Mich. App. 1 (2003) (appellate abandonment for insufficient briefing)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (2011) (standard for termination: clear and convincing evidence; appellate review for clear error)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (clear-error standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (harm includes emotional as well as physical harm)