in Re M S E Lovelace Minor
355288
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Car crash while respondent, her boyfriend, and two young sons were unrestrained; one son (ME) died and MSE was ejected, prompting a CPS investigation and petition to terminate respondent’s parental rights to MSE.
- Evidence showed a pattern of respondent failing to properly restrain children in vehicles, including prior tickets and a 10-day jail stay; other safety incidents included a child previously struck by a car and a violent altercation with an older daughter.
- Respondent has untreated mental-health diagnoses, a history of substance use, unstable housing and employment, and multiple incarcerations; a psychological evaluation found a poor prognosis for insight and behavior change.
- MSE was placed with his paternal grandmother, Debra Cottrell, who addressed his medical, dental, and vision needs, provided a stable home and schooling support, and was willing to care for him permanently.
- At the best-interests hearing respondent had regular supervised visits, had completed some services, and had employment but lacked suitable, stable housing; the trial court found termination in MSE’s best interests and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in MSE’s best interests | Termination necessary because respondent’s long history of poor judgment, untreated mental illness, substance use, housing instability, and specific safety incidents create an unacceptable risk | Respondent argued she bonded with MSE, complied with services, visited regularly, had employment, and could parent with further services | Court affirmed: preponderance of evidence supports best interests; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether placement with a relative precludes termination | Relative placement is a required factor but can be outweighed by other evidence showing return would be unsafe | Respondent argued placement with grandmother weighs against termination | Court: acknowledged relative placement but found it outweighed by respondent’s risks and grandmother’s provision of stability |
| Whether respondent’s parenting history and specific safety incidents justify termination | History of failing to restrain children, prior tickets/jail, prior pedestrian accidents, violence, and lack of insight show ongoing danger to MSE | Respondent emphasized compliance with services and positive supervised visits | Court found history and lack of insight supported conclusion that returning MSE would pose an unacceptable safety risk |
| Whether treatment of older child (PFD) suggests respondent can parent MSE | State: children are not similarly situated; PFD’s circumstances differ (age, independence) so rights to PFD do not control | Respondent argued intact relationship with PFD shows fitness or potential to improve | Court treated the children’s interests separately and rejected the argument, finding differences justified separate analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (2012) (lists factors for best-interests analysis)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (2013) (best-interests must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence)
- In re Schadler, 315 Mich App 406 (2016) (standard of review for best-interests is clear error)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30 (2011) (defines clearly erroneous standard)
- In re White, 303 Mich App 701 (2014) (enumerates factors a court may consider in best-interests analysis)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341 (2000) (trial court may rely on the entire record, including statutory-ground evidence, in best-interests analysis)
- In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426 (2015) (placement with relatives is a factor the court must consider)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) (relative placement weighs against termination)