in Re K R Short Minor, 332110

Background

KS, born ~2013, was removed from mother’s care; respondent-father (McKnight) was incarcerated and had minimal contact or support for KS.
Respondent’s earliest prison release date was 2047; his criminal record includes convictions for kidnapping, armed robbery, criminal sexual conduct, and related offenses.
Respondent’s parental rights to another daughter (DM) were involuntarily terminated in 2010.
Petitioner (child protective services) filed to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), (i), and (j); petitioner mailed a treatment plan to respondent and contacted the prison about available services.
At the termination hearing, respondent testified he received the plan but could not complete services in prison and asserted innocence pending postconviction efforts; caseworker testified respondent had not engaged in services and could not provide custody given lengthy incarceration.
The trial court terminated respondent’s rights, finding (i) prior sibling-termination and failed rehabilitation, (g)/(h) inability to provide custody due to incarceration, and (j) a reasonable likelihood of harm; best interests also found in favor of termination.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	McKnight’s Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination proven (esp. MCL 712A.19b(3)(i))	Prior involuntary termination of parental rights to sibling + prior rehabilitation efforts failed → statutory ground proven	No evidence rehabilitation efforts failed before 2010; prior termination not based on his neglect	Court: (i) proven — prior termination + record (abandonment/failed rehabilitation) suffice; no clear error
Whether petitioner failed to provide reasonable reunification services	Reasonable efforts not required here because respondent’s rights to a sibling were previously terminated and respondent is a registered sex offender; petitioner nonetheless sent a plan and contacted prison	Petitioner did not make reasonable efforts or accommodations to provide services while he was incarcerated	Court: No plain error; statutory exceptions apply and petitioner attempted contact; services not required
Whether trial court improperly barred services because of incarceration	Court may facilitate prison-available services; petitioner cannot provide in-person community services in prison but can attempt to connect respondent to prison services	Court improperly excused efforts solely due to incarceration	Court: No reversible error — court meant services limited to those available in prison; state not relieved, but here exceptions applied and petitioner contacted prison
Whether termination was against KS’s best interests	Termination promotes KS’s need for permanency and stability given father’s long incarceration, criminal history, lack of parenting	Father urged relative caregivers (mother/sister) could care for KS and adoption not necessary; argued court didn’t consider relative placement	Court: Best interests supported termination — stability, inability of father to parent for decades, prior failures; no record of relative placement; no clear error

Key Cases Cited

In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (trial-court factual findings reviewed for clear error)
In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (establishes that finding one statutory ground obviates need to address others)
In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (timing to assert need for accommodations in services when service plan adopted)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard)
In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (reasonable efforts to reunify required except in aggravated circumstances)
In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (reasonable services relates to sufficiency of evidence for termination)
In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (state not relieved of duties to engage an absent parent merely because incarcerated)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interests factors and need to consider relative placement)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (additional best-interests considerations)
In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (standard of review and best-interests analysis)
In re Marin, 198 Mich. App. 560 (court may terminate one parent’s rights without terminating the other parent’s rights)