Hearsay; Evidence of a prior termination case; Judicial notice; Procedures & findings in removing a child & placing the child into foster case; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on representation by different attorneys; Child’s best interests

The court rejected respondent-mother’s claim that the trial court improperly considered hearsay evidence as to a prior termination case. As to the child’s (LLG) removal and placement into foster care, the ex parte order to take LLG into protective custody “and respondent’s consent were sufficient to satisfy the factual criteria necessitating placement.” Further, she was not denied the effective assistance of counsel and the trial court did not clearly err in finding that terminating her parental rights was in LLG’s best interests. Respondent first alleged “that, at the termination hearing, the trial court improperly considered hearsay evidence addressing the prior termination case and made unfounded assumptions about her barriers and services in that case.” Respondent asserted it “did not rely on admissible evidence addressing the termination of” her rights to another child, DLH, in Ottawa County. Yet, it appeared “the trial court acquired the Ottawa County family court records to take judicial notice of the proceeding.” Specifically, on 3/16/22, it “ordered DHHS and all other treating or supervising agencies to release their records to it, the attorneys of record, and the parties. These entities were to provide all information related to the children and parents. This order included, but was not limited to, medical treatment, substance abuse, mental health, counseling, and education records.” The record did not indicate that DHHS failed to comply with the order. In addition to the trial “court’s order requiring record disclosure of respondent’s other proceedings, there was testimony offered at the termination hearing addressing the Ottawa County family court case.” Specifically, her “sister-in-law testified that she adopted respondent’s child, DLH, after respondent’s parental rights were terminated.” Respondent’s foster-care worker, W, “testified that she had knowledge about the termination case involving DLH, which began in 2019. [W] also testified that, as in this case, one of respondent’s barriers was substance abuse, and many of the services provided to [her] in the case involving DLH were the same as those provided in this case. When asked by respondent’s counsel why she did not think respondent should have more time to engage in services given LLG’s young age, [W] testified that respondent was offered services since 2019 to address the same barriers, but [she] did not benefit from services to overcome her substance abuse.” Respondent failed “to address the court order to DHHS requiring disclosure of [her] other proceedings or the admissibility of [W’s] testimony. Moreover, there was no objection to either the court order or the testimony. And, the Michigan Rules of Evidence did not apply to the termination hearing because termination did not occur at the initial dispositional hearing or a hearing on a supplemental petition asserting different circumstances.”