in Re wills/abby Minors, 334027

Children were removed after severe physical abuse and neglect by their mother; respondent father (Wills) had been largely absent and did not protect them.
DA came into father’s custody in Jan 2014 with visible injuries; father failed to seek medical care or notify authorities.
Mother’s rights were terminated at disposition; father was offered reunification services (parenting classes, therapy, visits, housing/income goals).
Father’s participation was uneven: missed ~half of visits, completed classes/therapy but showed little benefit, tested positive for marijuana, lived transiently, and had inconsistent employment.
Father repeatedly facilitated contact between the children and their abusive mother and used threatening corporal-punishment talk with a child, demonstrating poor judgment given the children’s PTSD.
After >2 years, the trial court terminated father’s parental rights to EW, JW, and DA under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); it did not terminate rights to MW due to a strong bond and MW’s unique circumstances.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j)	Father failed to provide a stable home, income, and to benefit from services; children would be harmed if returned	Father made positive steps (completed classes, some therapy), improved compliance over time, and was not homeless	The court held the statutory grounds were proven by clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed
Whether respondent benefitted sufficiently from services to avoid termination	Services were available but respondent did not benefit (poor judgment, facilitated contact with abuser, missed visits)	Respondent argued participation and some progress showed benefit and potential for reunification	Court found participation without benefit insufficient; failure to benefit supported termination
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests	Children needed permanency and stability; respondent couldn’t provide a safe home and risked reintroducing mother	Respondent emphasized bonds with children and potential confusion from differing outcomes (MW vs. siblings)	Court found termination was in best interests of EW, JW, and DA (but not MW); it evaluated each child individually

In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination and appellate review standard)
In re JK, 468 Mich. 202 (2003) (definition of clearly erroneous appellate review)
In re White, 303 Mich. App. 701 (2014) (conditions continuing to exist despite services can support MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g))
In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (2012) (completion of services is insufficient absent demonstrable benefit)
In re Moss, 301 Mich. App. 76 (2013) (preponderance standard for best-interests determination)
In re Brown/Kindle/Muhammad, 305 Mich. App. 623 (2014) (appellate review of best-interests findings)
In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (duty to assess best interests of each sibling individually)