Issues: Termination of the respondents-parents' parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j); In re McIntyre; In re LaFlure; The best interests of the children; In re Trejo Minors; Reunification; In re HRC
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Baldwin
e-Journal Number: 50697
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Hoekstra, Markey, and Borrello
The court held that the trial court properly terminated both respondents-parents' parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j) and that termination was in the children's best interests. The proceeding commenced with the children's removal pursuant to Petition A in 3/09 that alleged that respondent-father used meth, that respondent-mother had mental health issues and used drugs, and that they both lived in an unsanitary home and engaged in domestic violence. After nine months' participation in intensive Family Dependency Drug Treatment Court and other reunification services, the family was reunited. The trial court dismissed the children's temporary court wardship after 11 months. Respondents relapsed shortly thereafter. Then, after a meth lab exploded in 10/10 in the bedroom they occupied, the children were removed again, and the petitioner-DHS requested termination of respondents' parental rights at the initial disposition in Petition B. Child protective proceedings are one continuous proceeding, and the court held that the trial court properly considered the evidence presented from 3/09 to 6/11 under both Petitions A and B in finding sufficient evidence to terminate the father's parental rights. His relapse into meth use immediately after reunification with the children, his chronic unstable housing, and his operation of a meth lab in the home with the children present clearly constituted failure to provide them with proper care. Still, he argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to show there was no reasonable expectation he could rehabilitate himself within a reasonable time and provide the children with safe, appropriate care. However, the evidence showed that in addition to his nearly immediate relapse after participating in intensive services following the proceeding under Petition A, he never achieved stability after relapsing and was incarcerated on probation violations for approximately five of the eight months of the proceeding regarding Petition B. "During the periods of time he was not incarcerated, he failed to initiate counseling to address his most serious issue, substance abuse, or obtain stable housing and comply with the terms of his probation." In light of the fact that he remained un-rehabilitated, the court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the evidence clearly showed the children would be at risk of harm if returned to his care. The court also held that terminating both respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests. "The evidence showed the children were strongly bonded to respondents and would suffer emotional distress if the family bond was severed, but the evidence also showed respondents' chaotic home environment" caused them to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and significant trauma that necessitated long-term counseling and very consistent parenting. The trial court based its best interests decision on the whole of the evidence presented, finding neither respondent was able to provide the children the safe, stable, consistent home they needed within a reasonable time. "Its decision to terminate respondents' parental rights was not summary or premature. Indeed, it was based on more than two years' evidence." Affirmed.
Issues: Termination under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); Whether the trial court properly found that respondent-father did not make progress with his case-service plan; In re Fried; In re JK; In re Miller; In re Gazella; Whether respondent was entitled to additional reunification services; Stallworth v. Stallworth; The child's best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: In re Romeri
e-Journal Number: 50656
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Hoekstra, Markey, and Borrello
Concluding that the trial court's determination that the respondent-father did not satisfactorily complete his case-service plan was not clear error, the court held that the trial court properly terminated the respondent's parental rights to the minor child where the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent argued that the trial court clearly erred in finding that he did not make progress with his case-service plan. Specifically, he asserted that the trial court's consideration of his progress affected its determination that the statutory grounds for termination were established. It was apparent from the evidence that respondent at least partially complied with aspects of his plan where he attended a parenting program, attended supervised parenting time, and attended counseling sessions. However, it is not enough to simply participate in services. The circumstances that led to the child's adjudication involved respondent's failure to protect the child from the mother, who was not capable of providing proper care. "Further, respondent failed to recognize his own role in contributing to the child's malnourishment and failure to thrive, which led to the child's eventual hospitalization." The evidence clearly demonstrated that he still had not accepted any responsibility for the child's circumstances. According to his therapist, respondent continued to believe that the "whole thing" was the product of a conspiracy against him and the mother. Also, the evidence established that respondent continued to associate with the mother and believed that she was an appropriate caregiver, despite the prior termination of her parental rights and issuance of an order prohibiting respondent from having contact with her. Contrary to his argument on appeal, the evidence did not show that he obtained suitable housing. "At best, it showed that he made minimal efforts to attempt to secure housing and new employment during the month before the termination hearing, but was not successful in achieving either goal." The trial court's failure to comment on this evidence when concluding that respondent failed to make adequate progress did not establish clear error. "It was not necessary for the trial court to specifically comment on all of the evidence." Affirmed.
© 2012 State Bar of Michigan