in Re Robinson Minors
332022
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- SR was removed in Oct 2013 after police found heroin, a marijuana pipe, and a loaded gun in the home; respondent-father pled guilty to narcotics offenses and was incarcerated in May 2014. TR was born Oct 2014 and later removed.
- Petitioner (DHHS) prepared a reunification service plan requiring substance‑abuse and psychological evaluations, random drug screens, stable housing, income, and therapy; respondent received referrals before incarceration but largely did not comply.
- Respondent was released in Oct 2014, failed to follow through with services, violated probation, and was rearrested Feb 2015; he remained incarcerated for most of the proceedings.
- Petitioner communicated with respondent by letter, provided referrals, and caseworkers contacted MDOC social workers; the caseworker visited respondent in jail but respondent was not present at multiple review/permanency hearings.
- The trial court found statutory grounds to terminate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests given respondent’s noncompliance, continued incarceration, and uncertain release date.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner provided reasonable reunification services / sufficiency of evidence supporting statutory grounds | Petitioner argued it provided pre‑ and post‑incarceration referrals, regular written contact, and facilitation through MDOC, satisfying its obligations; one statutory ground suffices for termination | Respondent argued petitioner failed to provide any meaningful reunification services, especially while he was incarcerated | Held: Court found petitioner made reasonable efforts (letters, visits, MDOC contact, referrals); statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence (conditions persisted and unlikely to be rectified) |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were established under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j) | Petitioner argued respondent’s substance abuse, probation violations, nonparticipation in services, and incarceration established the statutory grounds | Respondent disputed sufficiency, citing lack of services and recent participation in prison programs | Held: Termination warranted—conditions leading to adjudication remained unrectified, respondent failed to provide proper care, and return posed a risk of harm |
| Whether respondent was denied procedural due process under MCR 2.004 (right to telephonic/video participation while incarcerated) | Petitioner argued respondent had opportunities to participate at key hearings, received orders, and was sent notices to the jail; administrative burden minimal | Respondent argued he was not informed of ability to participate by phone/video and missed numerous review hearings without opportunity to participate | Held: Court found MCR 2.004 violations (insufficient offers of participation), but the error was not outcome determinative and did not require reversal |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Petitioner argued that children needed permanency and stability given respondent’s long incarceration and history of noncompliance | Respondent argued termination was premature; he should be given more time to complete services and await possible parole | Held: Court concluded by preponderance that termination served children’s best interests given their ages, time in foster care, respondent’s noncompliance, and indeterminate incarceration date |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (standard of review for termination and best-interest considerations)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (duties to incarcerated parents; MCR 2.004 obligations and MDOC coordination)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (only one statutory ground needed to terminate parental rights)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (2014) (due process requires adjudication hearing for each parent)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest requiring fundamentally fair procedures)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balanced test for procedural due process protections)