e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 73141
Opinion Date : 05/21/2020
e-Journal Date : 06/09/2020
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Johnson
Practice Area(s) : Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Swartzle, Gleicher, and M.J. Kelly
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Principle that the mere present inability to personally care for one’s children due to imprisonment is not sufficient to support termination; In re Mason; Appropriateness of termination when the respondent has not accomplished any meaningful change in the conditions existing at the time of adjudication; In re Williams; Appropriateness of termination when the parent’s parenting skills improved, but the parent continued to expose the child to dangerous individuals. In re White; Principle that only one statutory ground must be proven; In re Ellis; Adjudication; In re Kanjia; Best interests of the children; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Summary

Holding that § (c)(i) was proven, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, the court affirmed termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights. Her parental rights were terminated based on her substance abuse and related incarceration, and her refusal to provide the children with proper care and support. On appeal, the court first noted that the jury’s finding that adjudication was appropriate was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It next rejected respondent’s argument that the DHHS failed to prove a statutory ground for termination. “The conditions that led to adjudication included housing, employment, and drug use.” Her housing situation “remained unresolved, she remained unemployed, and she continued to use drugs and associate with drug users.” While she was released on bond, it was revoked because she incurred other meth-related charges. Finally, the court rejected her claim that termination was not in the children’s best interests. Although the trial court properly considered her bond with the children and their placement with relatives, “the evidence also indicated that the children needed permanency and finality. The trial court heard testimony that the children were adoptable.” It could also properly consider her “failure to comply with her service plan when it determined whether termination was in the children’s best interests.” Finally, while their “paternal grandparents were willing to continue to care for the children, they sought a long-term placement and they were concerned about their ability to continue caring for the children.”

Full PDF Opinion