in Re snow/williams/robinson Minors
335536
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- Mother appealed termination of her parental rights to six children; trial court terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).
- Evidence over several years and two proceedings showed chronic medical neglect (missed appointments; conditions including seizures, lead poisoning, failure to thrive), unmet behavioral/therapy needs, and cognitive impairments in children.
- Mother frequently relocated, causing school enrollment/attendance problems and disrupting services; at times kept children in unsanitary living conditions.
- Mother had intermittent noncompliance with service plans and did not benefit from completed services; she concealed children’s whereabouts and engaged in relationships with violent men, including contact with a man who later committed a nearby murder in front of one child.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, statutory grounds for termination and by a preponderance that termination was in the children’s best interests; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Respondent's Argument | Appellee's/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j)) | Termination not supported: relocations were to find safe housing/avoid domestic violence; she completed most services, employed, no substance abuse; fathers to blame for missed medical visits | Court relied on long record showing medical neglect, service noncompliance/ineffectiveness, unsanitary housing, evasive conduct, instability, and dangerous relationships | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (c)(i), (g), and (j) |
| Whether alleged hearsay and foster-worker testimony fatally prejudiced the proceeding | Testimony from private foster-care worker was speculative/hearsay and tainted the record | Any alleged hearsay related to matters supported by untainted evidence or was irrelevant; no prejudicial error shown | Affirmed: any unpreserved hearsay error was not prejudicial |
| Whether termination served children’s best interests | Mother claimed strong bonding, caring visitation, and love; urged reunification potential | Court emphasized children’s need for permanency, stability, specialized care by foster parents, history of instability and danger in mother’s care | Affirmed: preponderance showed termination was in children’s best interests |
| Weight of child’s wishes in best-interests analysis | Mother argued child wanted to remain with her | Court noted child’s genuine wishes but gave little weight due to age and gravity of circumstances | Affirmed: child’s preference did not overcome other best-interest factors |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Beck, 488 Mich. 6 (2010) (one proven statutory ground plus best-interests finding mandates termination)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (standard for termination and best-interests focus on child)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich. App. 30 (2011) (termination standards)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (2011) (review standard: clear error)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (harmless-error/plain-error review in termination proceedings)
- In re Miller, 433 Mich. 331 (1989) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (2012) (parent must show benefit from services)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (best-interests factors list)
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (additional best-interests considerations)