e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 70836
Opinion Date : 06/25/2019
e-Journal Date : 07/11/2019
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Flowers
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Gadola, Boonstra, and Swartzle
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Termination under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) & (j); In re VanDalen; In re HRC; In re White; Children’s best interests; In re Schadler; In re Conley; In re AH; In re Olive/Metts Minors; Reasonable reunification efforts; In re Hicks/Brown; In re Mason; In re Fried; In re Frey

Summary

The court held that the trial court properly terminated both respondents’ parental rights to the children where the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and it was in their best interests. As to § (c)(i), the issues that led to adjudication were “domestic violence between respondents, medical neglect of the oldest child, and” respondent-mother’s substance abuse. After adjudication, neither respondent engaged in domestic violence counseling, and the mother became involved in a second relationship that included domestic violence. “Neither respondent participated in the oldest child’s medical care after his removal from their custody.” The mother participated in only 14 of 116 drug screens, 5 of which were positive for marijuana. Her “substance abuse evaluation recommended intensive outpatient rehabilitation services, but she never engaged in those services.” Upon release from jail, the respondent-father “failed to participate in the case service plan, failed to meet with the agency, and engaged in criminal activity, which resulted in his again being incarcerated.” During his re-incarceration, he failed to contact the agency. Thus, the evidence established that the conditions that initially led to adjudication continued to exist. Also, because respondents failed to participate in, benefit from, or comply with their service plans, the trial court did not err by terminating their parental rights under § (g). Similarly, when examining § (j), the court has held that “a parent’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of his or her service plan is evidence that the child will be harmed if returned to the parent’s home.” Therefore, their failure to comply with their case service plans supported termination under § (j) as well. Affirmed.

Full PDF Opinion