in Re Morales Minors
334142
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- DHHS petition (May 2014) alleged parental substance abuse, domestic violence, abandonment, lack of basic care, and unsafe housing; court removed six children and placed them with grandparents.
- Respondent-mother initially complied (psych eval, parenting, employment, negative screens) and children were returned, but she later resumed abusive relationships, used drugs, repeatedly left/abandoned children, relocated to Grand Rapids, missed visits, and failed to maintain housing/benefits.
- Respondent-father participated early but then largely disengaged for over a year, failed drug and domestic-violence services, refused many drug tests, and had no meaningful contact or suitable housing.
- Multiple review hearings (2014–2016) documented relapses, unsafe living conditions, missed visits, and caseworkers’ recommendations for termination; petition to terminate filed June 2016.
- Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j) for both parents and held termination was in the children’s best interests; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence | DHHS: conditions causing adjudication (substance abuse, domestic violence, neglect, unsafe housing, abandonment) persisted and were unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time | Parents: challenged sufficiency of evidence for the statutory grounds | Court: affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) for both parents |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | DHHS: parents’ patterns (abandonment, exposure to violence/drugs, instability, failure to complete services) outweighed parental bonds; siblings needed stability | Parents: urged alternatives (long-term foster care, relative placement for older children) | Court: affirmed — preponderance of evidence favored termination; court considered relative placements before ruling |
| Whether separate hearings were required when different evidentiary standards might apply | DHHS: one ground under (c)(i) sufficed so single hearing acceptable | Father: argued separate hearings required because some alleged grounds required legally admissible evidence | Court: rejected — moot because (c)(i) ground (lower evidentiary standard) was established; no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for respondent-father | Father: trial counsel failed to call witnesses, elicited damaging testimony, conceded case at closing, and failed to object to procedure | DHHS: counsel’s strategic choices reasonable; omissions either speculative or nonprejudicial given record | Court: counsel’s performance largely reasonable; even where closing arguably conceded, no prejudice shown; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard: termination requires clear and convincing proof of statutory ground)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App.) (review standard: clear error for statutory-ground findings)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (Mich. Ct. App.) (when one ground for termination established, court need not address others)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App.) (trial court must consider relative placement when evaluating best interests)
- In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich. App. 49 (Mich. Ct. App.) (best-interest determination reviewed for clear error)
- In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (Mich. Ct. App.) (procedural review of termination hearing issues)
- In re CR, 250 Mich. App. 185 (Mich. Ct. App.) (applying ineffective-assistance analysis by analogy in TPR cases)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (Mich.) (noting limits and context for prior authority in parental-rights decisions)
- People v Mack, 265 Mich. App. 122 (Mich. Ct. App.) (appellate review limited to errors apparent on record when no evidentiary hearing below)
- People v Pickens, 446 Mich. 298 (Mich.) (Strickland standard and deference to trial strategy)
- People v Russell, 297 Mich. App. 707 (Mich. Ct. App.) (prejudice inquiry: reasonable probability of different result required)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (Mich. Ct. App.) (failure to advance meritless argument is not ineffective assistance)