In re White
303 Mich. App. 701
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother (Rinnert) had three daughters with special needs (oldest autistic; younger two with ADHD/bipolar); multiple CPS referrals since 2002 and children removed in 2011.
- Mother has a history of unstable housing, poor relationship choices, and prior exposure of children to a known sex offender; she is physically disabled and had psychological findings of emotional immaturity and tendency to seek exploitive relationships.
- Over ~2 years she participated in services and made parenting improvements, but repeatedly allowed men she met online or otherwise into her home (including men with criminal histories) and had lapses (e.g., visitors with alcohol at supervised visits; recurring head lice after visits).
- Professionals expressed concern that the mother’s pattern of inviting risky companions posed special danger to the vulnerable oldest child and the other children.
- The trial court terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), finding the conditions that led to adjudication persisted, the mother could not provide proper care, children would likely be harmed if returned, and foster placements provided greater stability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination (MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)) were proved | Rinnert argued she participated in and benefitted from services and thus conditions were rectified | Department argued the conditions (exposing children to risky men) continued despite services | Court upheld termination: conditions persisted and unlikely to be rectified within a reasonable time |
| Whether statutory grounds for failure to provide care and risk of harm (MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) & (j)) were proved | Rinnert stressed parenting progress and bonds with children | Department emphasized mother’s continued association with men with criminal backgrounds and inability to benefit from plan, posing risk of harm | Court held clear and convincing evidence supported termination under (g) and (j) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Rinnert argued strong parent-child bond and need to consider each child’s ties (particularly the oldest) | Department noted children’s need for permanency, stability, thriving foster placement, and adoption prospects | Court found, by preponderance, best interests favored termination—stability and safety outweighed the bond |
| Whether the trial court failed to assess individual best interests | Rinnert claimed the court did not address the oldest child’s particular bond | Department argued the court considered individual needs and found no significant differences warranting separate rulings | Court held no clear error: court considered individual needs and any differences were not significant enough to change the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (Mich. 2010) (standard of review and statutory interpretation guidance for termination)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341 (Mich. 2000) (parental failure to benefit from services as evidence for inability to provide proper care)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court must address significant differences in individual children’s best interests)
- Foskett v. Foskett, 247 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (principle that an individual child’s best interests control if keeping siblings together would harm that child)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (need for trial court findings on each child’s best interests on remand)