Slip Opinion
Mich. Ct. App.May 14, 2019Background
- Three children were removed in March 2017 after recurring severe hygiene problems at parents’ home (lice, feces on walls/floor, pests) and school absences; court took jurisdiction and case proceeded for ~17 months.
- Parents received repeated services: four parenting classes (last ended March 28, 2018), supportive visitation, case aide assistance, and other referrals; respondent-mother has documented cognitive limitations.
- DHHS provided gas cards and required a completed budget for bus passes; caseworkers and GAL worked with family and monitored progress.
- Persistent concerns during the case: inadequate parenting skills, poor follow-through (missed appointments, chaotic visits), cleanliness and hygiene problems, and limited independent engagement with children.
- Trial court found statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) and terminated parental rights in August 2018; both parents appealed, arguing insufficient reasonable efforts and errors in best-interests analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHHS made reasonable efforts to accommodate mother’s cognitive impairments | DHHS failed to modify services (e.g., help complete budget, provide more parenting classes, use relatives as supportive placement) | N/A | Court: DHHS efforts were reasonable (multiple classes, reinforcement during visits, offered supports; mother understood requirements); not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were established (MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g)) | Mother argued improvements meant conditions leading to adjudication were rectifiable | DHHS and GAL pointed to ongoing hygiene/parenting/engagement problems and failure to follow through | Court: Clear and convincing evidence supported grounds — conditions persisted and unlikely to be rectified in a reasonable time. |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (mother) | Mother urged reunification/home with paternal grandfather TR as support and/or guardianship | DHHS/GAL argued children had improved in foster care and parents not yet able to parent independently; permanency needed | Court: No clear error — best interests favored termination given parenting deficits, need for stability, and doubtful prospect of timely remedial progress. |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests (father) | Father argued he tried to keep home clean and guardianship should be considered | DHHS/GAL: father still failed to engage and lacked consistent follow-through; guardianship not appropriate for permanency | Court: No clear error — evidence supported termination rather than guardianship or continued reunification efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (discussing DHHS reasonable-efforts duty in child-protective cases)
- In re Hicks, 500 Mich. 79 (DHHS must reasonably accommodate a parent’s disability; trial courts assess reasonableness)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (standard of review and clear-error framework for termination findings)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (best-interest consideration of relative placement)
- In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad, 305 Mich. App. 623 (parental-rights termination and best-interest standard)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (only one statutory ground required to affirm termination)
- People v Fonville, 291 Mich. App. 363 (issue-preservation principle on appeal)