In Re norton/barker Minors
359044
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2022Background:
- DHHS filed in Oct 2018 to remove two children from respondent-mother after allegations she physically abused son JN (beltings, kicking, withholding food) and lacked suitable housing; respondent pleaded no contest to inadequate housing.
- The court adopted a service plan requiring housing, stable income, signing releases, psychological evaluation and follow-up, counseling, and parenting classes.
- Respondent inconsistently engaged: attended some parenting classes and 18 therapy sessions but was later terminated for nonattendance/poor engagement, inconsistently took prescribed meds for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and forged a lease; housing remained unstable throughout the case.
- Respondent missed 43 of 81 visitation sessions, made broken promises to JN that exacerbated his behavioral and self-harm issues, and admitted to past belt discipline.
- DHHS filed a supplemental petition seeking termination (statutory bases later treated as MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j)); the trial court found DHHS made reasonable efforts, statutory grounds established, and termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) that DHHS made reasonable efforts, statutory ground (c)(i) was proved by clear and convincing evidence, and termination served the children’s best interests.
Issues:
| Issue | DHHS (Plaintiff) argument | Respondent (Defendant) argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable efforts to reunify | DHHS provided referrals, therapy opportunities, psychiatric care, case management and other services; respondent failed to engage | DHHS failed to secure adequate/continued therapy, made erroneous assumptions about respondent’s therapy status and should have provided more referrals | Affirmed: DHHS made reasonable efforts; respondent failed to participate and did not show she would have fared better with different services |
| Statutory ground: conditions continue (MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)) | Conditions (unstable housing, unresolved mental-health/parenting issues) persisted for years with no meaningful change and unlikely to be rectified timely | Respondent claimed progress (no recent physical discipline, housing, meds, therapy, parenting classes) and could remedy issues | Affirmed: Clear and convincing evidence that conditions remained and no reasonable likelihood they would be rectified within a reasonable time |
| Best interests of the children | Children needed stability/permanency; bonded to their respective placements which met their needs (including special needs); respondent’s instability and poor engagement outweighed her bond | Respondent argued bond with children and family support could provide stability; placements not shown to be materially superior | Affirmed: On the whole record, children’s need for permanence, placement bonds, and respondent’s noncompliance favored termination |
| Service-plan adequacy / preservation | DHHS relied on an appropriate plan and fulfilled duties; respondent’s challenges to service adequacy were not preserved | Respondent asserted plan implementation and referrals were deficient; argued plain error on service adequacy | Affirmed: Issues mostly unpreserved; no plain error shown and implementation did not render efforts unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for establishing statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (Mich. 2010) (standard of review for factual findings and statutory-grounds determinations)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (best-interests requirement after statutory ground proven)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (preponderance standard for best-interests finding)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (need for meaningful change to avoid termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i))
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (parental duty to participate in services; reasonableness inquiry)
- In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (to show unreasonable efforts, parent must show she would have fared better with other services)
- In re Ferranti, 504 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2019) (plain-error standard for unpreserved challenges in termination cases)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (only one statutory ground need be proved to terminate parental rights)
- In re Schadler, 315 Mich. App. 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (focus on child’s interests, not parent’s, in best-interests analysis)