in Re Sheffield Minors
335652
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Children removed after respondent left them unsupervised in a home without running water, electricity, or working plumbing; rotten food, medications, and dirty diapers were present; one child required emergency medical attention.
- Respondent admitted leaving the children alone while drinking and hanging up on a police officer; children placed in foster care and respondent granted supervised visitation.
- Over ~2 years, respondent had 13 addresses, 3 phone numbers, sporadic employment, inconsistent engagement with counseling and parenting classes, missed or was late to many supervised visits, and visitation often distressed the children.
- Foster parents provided stable care; children were bonded to them and their behavior improved in foster care but worsened around visits with respondent.
- Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j), and found termination was in the children’s best interests; respondent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue) | Petitioner: respondent failed to provide safe housing and failed to remedy conditions that led to removal over a two-year period. | Respondent: argued improvements (employment, counseling) and proposed plans (24-hour daycare, aunt’s help) showed likelihood of rectification. | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (c)(i). |
| Whether other statutory grounds (c)(ii) and (g) supported termination (other conditions; failure to provide proper care) | Petitioner: respondent did not benefit from services, lacked stable housing/employment, missed visits, so no reasonable expectation of proper care. | Respondent: contended she obtained a job and was participating in counseling and had relatives willing to help. | Held: Affirmed — evidence supported (c)(ii) and (g). |
| Whether termination was supported under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned) | Petitioner: chaotic visits, emotional harm risk, inability to attend to children during visits, unstable housing/employment created risk. | Respondent: disputed claims of harm and emphasized work, counseling, and daycare options. | Held: Affirmed — (j) satisfied based on risk of emotional harm and neglect. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests (preponderance standard) | Petitioner: children needed stability and permanency; foster parents provided care and were ready to adopt. | Respondent: stressed recent employment, counseling, and family support as evidence she could parent. | Held: Affirmed — court found children were bonded to foster parents, needs met in foster home, and respondent could not provide stability. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73 (2009) (standard of review and clear-error guidance for termination findings)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (1989) (definition of clearly erroneous)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (2011) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (2003) (compliance with treatment plan as evidence of ability to provide care)
- In re Gazella, 264 Mich. App. 668 (2004) (parent must benefit from services, not merely receive them)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (emotional harm or neglect can support (j) without physical abuse)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich. App. 120 (2011) (child’s need for stability and permanency relevant to best-interest analysis)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (factors for best-interest determination: bond, parenting ability, advantages of foster placement)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (preponderance standard for best-interest determination)