in Re Spencer Minors
332336
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Respondent and the children’s mother had five children; respondent’s parental rights to three other children had previously been terminated.
- ETS1 and ETS2 tested positive for marijuana at birth; mother had substance abuse and alcohol issues and ultimately forfeited her parental rights.
- ETS1 and ETS2 were placed with respondent after the mother’s rights were terminated, but respondent relapsed, abused substances, and served jail time for domestic violence.
- While respondent was jailed, the children were left in the care of an alcoholic; respondent repeatedly allowed the mother access to the children in violation of court orders.
- Petitioner sought termination of respondent’s parental rights under multiple statutory grounds; respondent pleaded no contest to the statutory grounds. The trial court held a best-interest hearing and terminated respondent’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests | Termination was necessary for children’s safety, permanence, and stability given respondent’s substance abuse, criminal history, prior terminations, and allowing prohibited contact with mother | Termendant argued the court erred in finding termination in children’s best interests | Court affirmed: termination was supported by factor analysis (bond, parenting ability, need for permanency, history of substance abuse/domestic violence, noncompliance with orders) |
| Whether the court properly considered children’s placement with relatives | Placement with paternal aunt was acknowledged but did not outweigh risks from respondent | Argued the court failed to consider placement with relatives (which weighs against termination) | Court explicitly addressed relative placement and concluded termination remained in children’s best interests; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and best-interest factors for termination)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich. App. 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (placement with relatives weighs against termination and must be considered)
- In re Hudson, 294 Mich. App. 261 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (termination may be necessary to secure children’s safety, permanence, and stability)