in Re M D Villanueva Mnor
333913
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Father has a long history of criminal convictions and domestic violence; he was incarcerated in 2014 with an earliest release date of 2020 (possible exposure until 2053). He had never met the child, who was born August 17, 2014, and was removed two days after birth due to maternal substance use and the child’s neonatal withdrawal.
- Father’s parental rights to five other children had been previously terminated in Eaton County after findings including physical abuse; prior services (substance-abuse, parenting, domestic-violence programs) did not rehabilitate him.
- The child was placed with a foster family from birth, bonded to the family and a biological sibling in that home; DHHS and the GAL concluded relative placements proposed by father (mother, niece, cousin) were unsuitable.
- DHHS filed petitions alleging grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), (i), and (j); a jury found jurisdiction based on father’s criminality under MCL 712A.2(b)(2).
- The trial court terminated father’s parental rights on June 21, 2016, finding statutory grounds (including imprisonment >2 years, prior sibling-termination for abuse, and likelihood of harm) and that termination was in the child’s best interests. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) (criminality) | Father’s long criminal history made the home unfit; preponderance supported jurisdiction | Criminal status alone insufficient; a relative could care for the child | Jury’s finding of jurisdiction affirmed — criminality plus the record rendered environment unfit; consideration of relatives not required at jurisdiction phase |
| Statutory ground: MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) (incarceration >2 yrs) | Father imprisoned such that child would lack a normal home >2 yrs, had not provided care, and no reasonable expectation he could within child’s age | Father argued relatives could provide placement and DHHS erred in refusing relative placement | Court did not clearly err — father’s sentence, lack of suitable relatives, and prior failures supported (3)(h) |
| Statutory ground: MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) (sibling termination for abuse + unsuccessful rehab) | Prior Eaton County terminations were for serious chronic physical abuse and prior services failed; supports (3)(i) | Father disputed sufficiency/rehabilitation arguments | Court affirmed (3)(i) finding based on Eaton County record of physical/mental abuse and unsuccessful remediation; one statutory ground suffices for termination |
| Best interests of the child | Child was bonded to foster family, had stability there, father had no bond, lengthy incarceration, history of abuse and failure to benefit from services | Father argued that relative placement and potential future rehabilitation weighed against termination | Court did not clearly err — preponderance favored termination for child’s need for permanency and safety |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (Mich. 2010) (elements required to terminate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h))
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (court must consider relative placement before termination/best-interest analysis)
- In re MU, 264 Mich App 270 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (criminal behavior can support jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2))
- In re Brock, 442 Mich 101 (Mich. 1993) (preponderance standard for jurisdiction in child protective proceedings)