In re Medina
317 Mich. App. 219
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Respondent pleaded guilty in 2000 to CSC‑I for forcible sexual assault of a 9‑year‑old and served ~8½ years; his parental rights to an older daughter were previously terminated.
- JM was born in 2011; petitioner (JM’s mother) later learned the true facts of respondent’s conviction, ended their relationship, and married Benjamin, who functions as JM’s father and seeks to adopt.
- Petitioner filed a petition in December 2014 to terminate respondent’s parental rights; the trial court prohibited respondent parenting time and assumed jurisdiction despite JM remaining in petitioner’s care.
- The trial court terminated respondent’s rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (3)(i), and (3)(n)(i); respondent does not contest the grounds on appeal and challenges statutory interpretation, standing, and the best‑interest finding.
- The trial court found petitioner and Benjamin credible, found respondent not credible, concluded JM lacked a bond with respondent, and emphasized JM’s need for permanency and stability with Benjamin.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 712A.19b(1) requires the child be in foster care/guardianship before a termination petition may be entertained | Statute permits termination petitions by listed parties and court may exercise jurisdiction even if child remains with custodial parent | §19b(1) requires the child to remain in foster care or with a guardian before termination proceedings | Court follows In re Marin: §19b(1) does not bar petitions when child remains with custodial parent; Marin is controlling and properly decided |
| Whether petitioner (custodial parent) had standing to file the termination petition | A custodial parent is a "custodian" under §19b(1) and therefore may petition to terminate the other parent’s rights | Parents are not listed explicitly in §19b(1), so petitioner lacks standing | Court holds petitioner had standing; Huisman supports that a custodial parent qualifies as "custodian" |
| Whether termination was in JM’s best interests (standard and factors) | Evidence (bond to stepfather, respondent’s criminal history, long absence, lack of bond) favors termination to provide permanency and stability | Biological‑father relationship has intrinsic value; termination severs paternal bond | Court finds by preponderance termination serves JM’s best interests given respondent’s sex‑offender history, lack of contact/bond, household risk factors, and Benjamin’s parental role |
| Whether Marin should be overruled or limited by later authority/amendments | Marin remains consistent with statute and legislative acquiescence; subsequent amendments did not alter the operative language | Marin conflicts with plain statutory text and should be overruled | Court declines to overrule Marin, concluding it is consistent with statutory scheme and hasn’t been reversed or modified |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marin, 198 Mich App 560 (interpreting MCL 712A.19b(1) to permit termination petitions even when child remains with custodial parent)
- In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372 (custodial parent falls within §19b(1) "custodian" and may petition to terminate other parent’s rights)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341 (discusses parental liberty interest and standards applicable in termination proceedings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (due‑process framework for parental‑rights termination)
- In re MKK, 286 Mich App 546 (statutory‑construction principles applicable to Juvenile Code)