in Re L Coselman Minor
333536
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Child born Nov 2014; mother’s parental rights previously terminated; respondent (father) signed affidavit of parentage Feb 2015 and the DHHS petition placed the child in foster care at five weeks.
- Respondent achieved and maintained sobriety, engaged in recovery programs, and had consistent supervised visits but never had unsupervised or overnight custody.
- Parent-agency treatment plan required parenting classes, purchasing a crib/car seat, and providing supplies for visits; respondent delayed or resisted these parenting-specific tasks and only completed some after prolonged delay.
- Respondent lacked stable, permanent housing and reliable income; his move to an apartment was on a short sublease and his career change to personal training yielded insufficient income.
- Child tested positive for active Hepatitis C; respondent had prior reactive Hep C antibody tests but failed to disclose his status or the mother’s known Hep C infection to caseworkers or foster parents.
- DHHS filed to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); after a six-day termination hearing the referee and trial court found statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interests; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination established under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care/custody) | DHHS: respondent failed to benefit from parenting services, lacked supplies, housing, and sufficient income; no reasonable expectation he could provide care in a reasonable time | Father: argued progress in sobriety, participation in services, and bond with child show he could parent | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (g) because respondent did not demonstrate ability/willingness to provide proper care within a reasonable time |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination established under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (likelihood child would be harmed) | DHHS: respondent’s failure to understand or attend to child’s medical needs (including Hep C disclosure) and reluctance to take initiative created risk of neglect/ harm | Father: pointed to sobriety and positive visits as evidence he would not harm child | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (j) due to risk of neglect and inability to prioritize child’s needs |
| Whether statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue) | DHHS: conditions (substance history, lack of parenting readiness, instability) persisted beyond 182 days | Father: contested sufficiency of evidence and efficacy of services completed | Held: Not necessary to decide separately because termination affirmed on other grounds; court noted (c)(i) need not be reached when at least one ground is proven |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interests | DHHS: child had strong bond with foster parents who provided excellent, stable care; child’s need for permanence supported termination | Father: emphasized his sobriety, consistent supervised visitation, and bond with child | Held: Affirmed — preponderance of the evidence showed termination was in child’s best interests due to greater stability, bond with foster parents, and respondent’s lack of readiness for unsupervised parenting |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (discusses clear and convincing standard for termination)
- In re Martin, 450 Mich. 204 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (standards and factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (deference to factfinder’s credibility assessments)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (compliance with treatment plan as evidence of ability to provide care)
- In re Gazella, 264 Mich. App. 668 (parent must benefit from services; merely participating is insufficient)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (harm includes physical or emotional harm, including neglect)
- In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (children’s needs prevail when parent cannot meet minimum responsibilities)