in Re Rees Minors
334011
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Children CR, KR, and SWMR were removed in Oct. 2014 after SWMR was born positive for cocaine and methadone; both parents had substance-abuse histories.
- CR and KR had previously lived under a limited guardianship with paternal grandmother; guardianship ended Aug. 2014 and children resumed living with parents but still saw grandmother frequently.
- Father had a medical-marijuana card, was alleged to abuse marijuana and alcohol, and was offered services (CMH, counseling, random drug screens, parent mentor); he obtained and then lost employment.
- Sexual-abuse disclosures by CR and KR prompted investigation and interruptions in visitation and services; allegations were unsubstantiated as to father but affected his contact with the children.
- Father’s participation was inconsistent: missed appointments, sporadic visits, discharge from counseling, emotional instability and frustration during visits; he lacked stable employment and adequate parenting skills.
- The trial court terminated father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g); foster relatives were willing to adopt and children were bonded to placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination | Petitioner: clear and convincing evidence supports termination under at least one statutory ground | Father: (on appeal) challenges only (c)(i) as to continuing conditions | Court: affirmed; found clear and convincing evidence of (c)(ii) and (g); father’s failure to challenge those grounds forfeits relief |
| (c)(i) — conditions continue to exist | Petitioner: conditions that led to adjudication persisted and unlikely to be rectified timely | Father: argued insufficient evidence for (c)(i) | Held: court’s (c)(i) finding not dispositive; other unchallenged grounds suffice |
| Best interests of the children | Petitioner: termination serves children’s need for permanency, stability, and finality; foster relatives can adopt | Father: trial court erred in relying on children’s preference and lumping parents together; older children had more time to bond | Held: termination was in each child’s individual best interests; court did not clearly err |
| Reasonable reunification efforts | Petitioner: made reasonable efforts (services, referrals, parenting time, parent mentor) | Father: alleged barriers (sexual allegations, delayed counseling start, multiple caseworkers) impeded compliance | Held: no plain error; petitioner’s efforts were reasonable and father failed to participate and benefit sufficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (evidentiary standard for statutory grounds and review)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (best-interest preponderance standard; child-focused analysis)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (clarifies individualized best-interest findings under Olive/Metts)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (standard on clear-error review and need for only one statutory ground)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (trial court duty to consider each child’s best interests)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (parental duty to participate and related procedural points)
- In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (parent must benefit from services)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (plain-error review for unpreserved issues)
- PT Today, Inc. v. Comm’r of Fin. & Ins. Servs., 270 Mich. App. 110 (appellate waiver for failure to produce necessary record)