in Re Wilson Minors
338602
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Twins born prematurely May 2016; one twin tested positive for marijuana shortly after birth and children were placed in foster care; court assumed jurisdiction June 2016.
- Petition alleged respondent (mother) actively used marijuana, lacked readiness to care for infants, and had outstanding warrants and criminal history.
- From June 2016–May 2017 respondent attended only 15 of 46 parenting-time sessions, tested positive for marijuana seven times, missed four drug screens, and failed to engage in referred services (psych evaluation, substance-abuse treatment, Home Again, Maternal Infant Health Program).
- Respondent had multiple short incarcerations during the proceedings and did not obtain stable housing or demonstrate ability to provide necessary infant supplies.
- Trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j); respondent appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground (c)(i) — conditions continuing and unlikely to be rectified — was proven | Petitioner: respondent continued unlawful marijuana use and lacked housing/supplies; no meaningful change after 182+ days | Respondent: marijuana use alone does not make her unfit; cited Medical Marihuana Act | Held: Affirmed (clear and convincing evidence of continuing conditions; termination proper under (c)(i)) |
| Whether MMMA bars consideration of respondent’s marijuana use | Petitioner: MMMA inapplicable because respondent lacked a medical-marijuana card | Respondent: MMMA protects lawful marijuana use and should limit adverse findings | Held: MMMA protection applies only with a valid card; respondent had none, so marijuana use was properly considered |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Petitioner: children need permanency, stability, and respondent could not provide care in foreseeable future | Respondent: had employment and scheduled appointments; argued for more time | Held: Affirmed (children had been in foster care ~1 year, respondent failed to secure stability or demonstrate ability to parent; termination served children’s best interests) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McIntyre, 192 Mich. App. 47 (1991) (clear-and-convincing standard for proving statutory grounds for termination)
- In re Trejo, 462 Mich. 341 (2000) (appellate review standard and best-interest framework; primary beneficiary is the child)
- In re Terry, 240 Mich. App. 14 (2000) (definition of clear error on review)
- In re Williams, 286 Mich. App. 253 (2009) (termination proper where parent made no meaningful change in conditions)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich. App. 35 (2012) (factors to consider in best-interest determination)
- In re Frey, 297 Mich. App. 242 (2012) (consider length of foster care and foreseeability of return when assessing best interests)
- In re HRC, 286 Mich. App. 444 (2009) (only one statutory ground need be proven for termination)