734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

A trial court may terminate parental rights in lieu of placement with relatives.

On appeal, respondent asserts that the trial court erred when it found that termination of her parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

A court may consider several factors including the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for permanency, stability and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the parent’s home.  The court may also consider psychological evaluations, the child’s age, any continued involvement in domestic violence, and the parent’s history.  When a child is in relative placement, a trial court must explicitly address whether termination is appropriate in light of the children’s placement with relatives.

In this case, the psychologist who examined respondent concluded that she exhibited symptoms consistent with psychosis.  During the nearly three years that the children were in care, respondent failed to consistently attend her therapy, and there was evidence that she was not taking prescribed medication.  At the end of nearly three years, respondent still had not demonstrated that she could spend unsupervised time with her children, let alone that she could adequately care for them if returned to her custody.

A court may also consider the advantages of a foster home and the possibility of adoption over the parent’s home. A court appointed special advocate testified that at the time the children came into care, they fought a lot with each other, did not know how to use a fork and knife, were unfamiliar with basic hygiene, and were not affectionate. After being placed in their respective foster homes, their behaviors improved.  Moreover, there was testimony from foster care workers and a psychologist that the children liked their placements and expressed an interest in remaining in these homes. The foster parents had all indicated a desire to adopt the children in their care.

Respondent asserts that when determining the best interests of the children, the trial court failed to consider that two of the children were placed with relatives. Although placement with a relative weighs against termination, and the fact that a child is living with relatives must be considered, placement with relatives is not dispositive, and a trial court may terminate parental rights in lieu of placement with relatives if it finds that termination is in the child’s best interests.

The trial court found that the relationship between respondent and the relative caregivers had deteriorated to the point that the individuals could no longer cooperate in a meaningful way. Implementing a guardianship with the relative caregivers in lieu of terminating respondent’s rights was simply not a viable option in light of her hostility toward the caregivers.

This court found that the trial court did not clearly err when it held that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests.

The relationship with your children is important, which is why you need to find an experienced family law attorney who will work hard to protect your rights and help you achieve a positive outcome. It is important to remember that decrees regarding child support, child custody, visitation and spousal support (alimony) are not always final.

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405