734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

Mother's inability to care for children despite two years of services from DHS results in termination of parental rights

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding that the DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-mother with the children (AG and AL). It also held that statutory grounds supported terminating her parental rights, and termination was in the children's best interests. Respondent (a developmentally delayed adult with an IQ of 61) complained that termination was improper as she "complied with the treatment plan to the best of her ability given her cognitive delays and the lack of services provided by the DHS." The DHS recognized her special needs and attempted to accommodate her. "Unfortunately, precursory hurdles had to be jumped." Respondent failed to follow through with paperwork, appointments, and meetings. She failed to inform her caseworker when she needed assistance with applications. AG and AL cannot remain indefinitely in foster care without a permanency plan awaiting respondent's cooperation to begin appropriately geared services. Moreover, termination was supported by two statutory grounds. As to § (c)(i), AG had been in care for nearly two years and AL for 1½ years. Yet, respondent had remedied none of the conditions that led to trial court intervention. She still lived with her mother and siblings in an unsuitable home. She remained unemployed and had made no educational gains. The most serious impediment to reunification - inability to manage the children's medical needs - also remained a concern. Given her "lackadaisical approach to important medical concerns," the trial court could determine that respondent would be unable to rectify this condition within a reasonable time. As to § (g), she admitted to case workers that she would be unable to care for the children's medical needs. Moreover, during parenting time sessions, she exhibited that she could not safely care for AG and AL without supervision, despite two years of services. She often ignored AL and failed to feed her, and she allowed AG to engage in activities. Given her inability to consistently comply with and benefit from services, the trial court did not err in finding that she would not be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time. Affirmed.

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new laws regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

REAL ESTATE 65: Determining that it could not conclude the trial court erred in its factual findings, and that it did not err in reforming a 2005 deed, the court affirmed the ruling that defendants were fee simple owners of the disputed 50-foot area

This case arose from a real-property dispute between brothers, as well as their respective wives. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered its findings of fact. The trial court determined that plaintiffs did not prove that excluding the...

FAMILY LAW 58: The trial court did not err by denying defendant-father’s motion to change custody and modify his parenting time of the parties’ child without having an evidentiary hearing to determine if there was proper cause or a change in circums

This case arose from a custody and parenting-time dispute between plaintiff-mother and father over their minor child. After father failed to respond to the paternity complaint within the 21 days of receipt of the complaint, mother filed an affidavit...

DIVORCE 53: Although the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions to deny defendant’s motions to set aside the default and the default JOD, it vacated the portions of the default JOD as to the distribution of marital property, custody, parenting t

Plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim for divorce.  Plaintiff and defendant were both ordered to appear at the settlement conference. After defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered a default. Soon...

FAMILY LAW 53: The trial court erred by treating the parties’ GAL as an LGAL and denying the parties the right to question her at a hearing; however, the trial court did not err in requiring the parties to compensate the GAL for her services.

Plaintiff and Defendant were never married, but share a young son who was born in 2016. The parties have battled over custody, child support, and other parenting issues ever since. In the spring of 2019, the parties filed competing motions to modify...

The Difference Between Theft, Robbery, and Burglary

Original Post: 1/11/2019 Often, burglary, robbery, and theft are used interchangeably even though there are distinct differences between all of them. Though, what all three do have in common is they may involve the unlawful taking of...

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