in Re Montgomery Minors
335184
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Parental-rights termination appeals from Wayne Circuit Court; trial court terminated mother’s and father’s rights under MCL 712A.19b(3) and found termination in children’s best interests.
- Case arose from concerns about domestic violence, anger management, homelessness, and parents’ inability to care for children’s needs.
- Mother had chronic mental and physical health problems, was homeless, had minimal visitation, did not complete/benefit from services, and children had weakened bond with her.
- Father had persistent anger and parenting deficits, refused/undermined family therapy, had unstable and unsuitable housing, allowed unsafe people in his home, and showed rough handling of young children.
- Trial court found multiple statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in children’s best interests; parents appealed only best-interest and sufficiency arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in best‑interest finding (mother) | Court failed to give weight to relative placement and should have considered guardianship | N/A (father raises his own best-interest challenge) | Court considered relative placement and rejected guardianship due to conflict/instability; termination was in children’s best interests |
| Whether guardianship was a proper alternative to termination (mother) | Guardianship preferable to termination | N/A | Guardianship would perpetuate instability because of parental conflict with the proposed guardian and mother’s unresolved issues; termination appropriate |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (father) | N/A | Father argued he complied with services and remedied conditions | Court found clear and convincing evidence for multiple statutory grounds (including failure to rectify conditions, failure to provide care, and risk of harm) |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (father) | N/A | Father contended he had rectified conditions and could provide stable care | Court found father had not benefitted from services, posed risk (anger, rough handling, unsafe environment), and termination was in children’s best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Beck, 488 Mich. 6 (2010) (one statutory ground plus best‑interest showing mandates termination)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (focus on child’s best interests in termination analysis)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (relative placement is an explicit factor in best‑interest determinations)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (guardianship considered when ongoing parent–child relationship, rather than termination, serves child’s best interests)
- In re Gazella, 264 Mich. App. 668 (2004) (parent must benefit from services; lack of change supports termination)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (1989) (trial court’s opportunity to judge witness credibility in termination proceedings)