e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 86393
Opinion Date : 08/18/2026
e-Journal Date : 09/02/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Black
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Cameron, Maldonado, and Wallace
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) & (j); Substance abuse; Failure to benefit from services; In re MJC; Reasonable likelihood of harm; Emotional harm; In re Hudson; Service-plan compliance; In re White; Child’s best interests; MCL 712A.19b(5); Permanency, stability, & foster placement

Summary

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding statutory grounds to terminate respondents-parents’ rights and by determining termination was in the child’s best interests. The child was removed after respondent-mother overdosed in the child’s presence while respondent-father was driving without a valid license and drug paraphernalia was found in the child’s car seat. Both parents pled no contest, the father later progressed enough to have the child returned to him, but both parents relapsed. The child was removed from the father a second time after a positive drug screen. The trial court terminated both parents’ rights after 28 months of proceedings. On appeal, the court first held that § (c)(i) was established as to the mother because she repeatedly left rehabilitation, relapsed multiple times, admitted she was still using substances, and was “still absolutely in square one” after nearly two-and-a-half years. It rejected her best-interest challenge because, despite services, she was “no better able to provide proper care and custody” than when the child was removed, while the child was thriving in a foster placement willing to adopt him. The court next held that § (j) was established as to the father because his continued relationship with the mother, whom he identified as his primary relapse trigger, supported the trial court’s concern that she would reenter the child’s life and cause “further emotional trauma and instability.” It also held that termination was in the child’s best interests despite the father’s bond because that bond “would be significantly damaged at this point in time,” the child improved in foster care, the foster family was willing to adopt, and the father relapsed three times during the case. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion