976 N.W.2d 44
Mich. Ct. App.2021Background
- Child was removed two days after birth; mother previously had involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling.
- DHHS filed an amended petition seeking termination; at early hearings the court found probable cause and initially concluded reasonable efforts were not required because of the prior sibling termination.
- At the June 2019 dispositional hearing the court found DHHS had not proved the more stringent clear-and-convincing ground for prior abuse/neglect and ordered reasonable efforts; services then proceeded.
- DHHS provided multiple services (case management, therapy, parenting classes, nursing-feed training, infant-mental-health, supervised visits, virtual contacts during COVID-19); mother has documented intellectual deficits and underwent a psychological evaluation recommending tailored parenting education.
- Parents stopped some in-person contact during COVID-19; mother had difficulty with videoconferencing and sometimes refused recommended bonding activities.
- After ~15 months in care (and ~12 months of services), the trial court terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) and (j); the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not ordering reasonable efforts before the initial termination hearing | Mother: court should have required reasonable efforts immediately | DHHS/court: preponderance-level findings supported denial because mother had prior involuntary termination and failed to rectify conditions | Court: No error; initial finding based on available preponderance evidence was permissible and later services were ordered when burden rose to clear and convincing |
| Whether post-order reasonable efforts were inadequate or violated ADA (failed to accommodate mother’s intellectual disability) | Mother: DHHS failed to provide ADA accommodations and appropriate services tailored to her deficits | DHHS: offered repeated-exposure training, referrals, PSIC parenting classes, individualized services; mother failed to identify alternative services she would have benefited from | Court: No plain error; mother failed to show what specific accommodations were missing or that she would have fared better |
| Whether untimely hearings and DHHS delays violated due process | Mother: delays (permanency/review hearings; DHHS late filing) deprived her of fair process and extra services/time | DHHS/court: COVID-19 caused unavoidable delays; delay in filing actually extended services and opportunity to engage | Court: Any timing defects were harmless; pandemic justified delay and later services cured prejudice |
| Whether statutory grounds and best interests supported termination (including father's appeal under §19b(3)(j)) | Mother/Father: challenged sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds and best-interest determination | DHHS: parents participated but did not benefit sufficiently; parents lacked insight/parenting skills and posed risk of harm or inability to rectify conditions within a reasonable time given child’s age | Court: Affirmed termination; clear-and-convincing evidence supported §19b(3)(c)(ii) (mother) and §19b(3)(j) (father); preponderance supports best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hicks/Brown, 500 Mich. 79 (discusses DHHS duty to make reasonable efforts and ADA accommodations)
- In re Rippy, 330 Mich. App. 350 (reasonable-efforts obligation except in aggravated-circumstances cases)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (elements of MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) termination ground)
- In re TK, 306 Mich. App. 698 (participation in services is not enough; parent must benefit)
- In re Fried, 266 Mich. App. 535 (DHHS must adopt a service plan and make reasonable efforts)
- In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (due-process considerations in child-protective proceedings)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (standard of review for best-interest determination)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (standard of review for termination findings)
- In re BZ, 264 Mich. App. 286 (deference to trial-court factfinding / clear-error review)