Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.
In this case, respondent’s counsel failed to notify respondent of his intent to withdraw from representation, and the court failed to notify respondent of the date of the termination trial.
Given her noncompliance with her service plan and her lack of progress in addressing her serious mental illnesses, the evidence supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable expectation that respondent will be able to provide proper care.
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.
The trial court terminated respondent's parental rights on the basis that she exposed the child to harm, including allowing improper contact with adult guests, including the child's biological mother, who had previously violently abused the child,...
Respondent-mother admitted that her son (WB) sexually abused the children at issue in this case (her daughters, AT and HK), but asserted that there was no evidence she "had an opportunity to prevent the abuse." The court found her argument...
The children "were placed in protective custody after respondent used inappropriate physical discipline on her son and authorities discovered that respondent's home lacked food and sleeping accommodations for the children." The trial court ordered...
On appeal, the respondent offered two claims of error as to the trial court's decision to terminate respondent's parental rights to CC and AC. First, respondent argued that the trial court clearly erred by finding that termination was appropriate...
The trial court assumed jurisdiction because she was mentally unstable and unable to provide consistent care. She failed to benefit from mental health services. Although respondent's case manager (R) gave generally favorable testimony, he also...
Respondent's argument focused on the fact that he was released from prison prior to the termination hearing. He claimed he was now prepared to parent the children, or would be prepared to do so soon. The record indicated otherwise. As it related to...
On remand, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and "provided a clear ruling explaining why it found termination" was in the children's best interests. It considered the appropriate factors and found that respondent "was not compliant...
The trial court terminated their rights based on their abuse of the child's sibling and/or failure to protect her from the other parent's abuse. On appeal, the court rejected respondent-mother's argument that termination was inappropriate because...
The Court of Appeals affirmed the order terminating her parental rights. It was undisputed that more than 182 days passed between the initial dispositional order and the termination order. "During that time, respondent did not comply with any...
Given the length of the case and his "noncompliance, lack of accountability, and his substance abuse issues-including multiple relapses when he was close to reunification- there was not a reasonable expectation that he would be able to provide...
Before the child was born, respondent (at the age of 18) pleaded guilty to CSC I. The victim was his nine-year-old cousin. Petitioner testified that she learned the facts of respondent's conviction after she gave birth to the child, and broke off...
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to the children pursuant to his voluntary release of parental rights under the Adoption Code. In 2015, he testified that he wanted to release his parental rights...
She argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support a statutory ground for termination due to the failure to offer her services and parenting time. The DHHS "sought termination at the initial dispositional hearing." Thus, it was...
The trial court terminated her parental rights under § (g) after finding that she physically abused the children throughout the proceedings and that further services would not cure the problem. The record reflected that in 6/13, when "AW was about...
The children were removed from her care in 2013 "based on various allegations relating to the deplorable conditions" of the home, the "lack of education being provided to the children," and her "failure to adequately address her mental-health...
It rejected the father's argument that the trial court erred by not holding the DHHS in contempt for failing to provide him with free therapy. It noted there was "no indication that the caseworker willfully defied the court's order to provide...
It rejected her claim that the DHHS failed to obtain a workbook recommended by a doctor following her psychological evaluation, noting that "ample efforts" were made by the caseworkers to obtain it, and that respondent was worked with on the issues...
In 5/14, the trial court ordered him to comply with a PAA. At the first review hearing in 7/14, he "admitted to relapsing into drug use and tested positive for cocaine." The trial court warned him that his "parental rights would be terminated if he...
Respondent's sole argument on appeal was that she has a constitutional right to parent her child. Although she was generally correct that "parents have a fundamental right to parent their children," the trial court did not err in terminating her...
As to § (c)(i), more than 182 days elapsed between the issuance of the initial disposition order and the termination decision, and the conditions that led to adjudication, namely her mental health problems, her failure to obtain adequate housing,...
They argued that the DHHS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that they failed to provide proper care or custody for the child and that there was no reasonable expectation that they would be able to do so within a reasonable time...
Respondent contended that the trial court erred by receiving the expert testimony of Dr. C, because the DHHS failed to specifically designate her as an expert on its witness list. She also asserted that C's testimony did not satisfy the...
She claimed that the trial court erred in adjudicating her as unfit. The trial court erred in finding that jurisdiction was established under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) by a preponderance of the evidence. "Under this statute, jurisdiction may be taken over a...
The court held that the trial court did not clearly err when it found that the DHHS established grounds for terminating the respondent-father's parental rights by clear and convincing evidence or when it found that termination of both...
Holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that § (c)(ii) was established by clear and convincing evidence, or in finding that termination was in the children's best interests, the court affirmed the trial court's order...
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...
The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-father's parental rights to the two children (SK and JK) where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in the...
The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother's parental rights to the child where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in the child's best...
Holding that the respondent-mother "enjoyed constitutional and statutory rights to appointed counsel when the L-GAL sought termination of her parental rights" in a prior appeal, the court vacated the order terminating her rights and remanded for a...
The court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother's parental rights to the children where at least one statutory ground for termination existed and it was in the children's best interests. On appeal, the court rejected...
The court held that MCL 712A.17b(5) requires a trial court to admit videorecordings of a child's forensic interview during a non-adjudicatory stage (here a tender years hearing) and that the trial court clearly erred in not admitting the children's...
The court held that the trial court properly terminated both respondents-parents' parental rights to the children where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in their best...
