In re Olive/Metts Minors
297 Mich. App. 35
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Respondent W Metts is mother to five children: AMI, RO, AM2, and twins DM1, DM2; twins have different paternity from siblings.
- DHS petitioned for temporary custody of the eldest children in 2007; court assumed jurisdiction due to neglect and improper supervision; children placed in foster care.
- Initial dispositional order in January 2008 required respondent to participate in services and allowed unsupervised visits with goal of reunification.
- Respondent made progress but experienced housing loss, evictions, and an arrest in 2008, with ongoing anger-management and parenting issues.
- Respondent had another DHS petition in 2011 alleging physical abuse; she admitted abuse and was evaluated with a poor prognosis for safe, stable environment.
- The trial court found multiple statutory grounds for termination and determined termination was in the children’s best interests, but failed to address the twins’ placement with a relative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were statutory grounds for termination proven for the children? | Metts contends grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence. | Metts contends the evidence does not support termination on the grounds asserted. | Court held grounds proven for termination. |
| Was the best-interests determination proper for RO, AMI, and AM2? | Best interests favored termination due to ongoing risk and lack of benefit from services. | Metts argues continued reunification efforts could be appropriate. | Termination in the best interests of RO, AMI, and AM2 affirmed. |
| Did the trial court err by not addressing relative placement for DM1 and DM2 in the best-interest analysis? | Relatives’ placement weighs against termination and supports termination for DM1/DM2 only if overall best interests require it. | The court should explicitly consider relative placement for the twins. | Court vacated the best-interest analysis for DM1/DM2 and remanded for explicit consideration of relative placement. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 761 NW2d 253 (2008) (clear and convincing evidence standard for grounds)
- In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 646 NW2d 506 (2002) (single sufficient ground supports termination)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 782 NW2d 747 (2010) (relatives’ placement factors in best interests)
- In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 592 NW2d 751 (1999) (explicit consideration of relative placement in best interests)
- In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 480 NW2d 293 (1991) (individualized consideration of each child in best interests)
- In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630, 776 NW2d 415 (2009) (foster care advantages influence best interests)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 809 NW2d 412 (2011) (factors for permanency and stability)
- Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1, 634 NW2d 363 (2001) (child custody framework applied to best interests in TERM cases)
- In re Jones, 286 Mich App 126, 777 NW2d 728 (2009) (parenting ability as a factor in best interests)