Background
In April 2023, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition alleging the two minor children were in need of care due to abandonment and physical neglect. The mother told a CPS investigator she could no longer care for the children because she was overwhelmed, and stated she would drop them at a DHHS office. Prior to the petition, the children had lived with the mother’s aunt in Ohio for two to three months, and the aunt expressed willingness to pursue guardianship and remain in Michigan to care for them. The children were initially placed with the aunt, then transferred to foster care.
Over 14 months of proceedings, the mother attended only 18 of 134 scheduled parenting times. She failed to complete parenting classes, individual therapy, or substance abuse treatment ordered by the court following a psychological evaluation. The mother was evicted from her apartment in August 2024 and did not obtain suitable housing thereafter. By December 2024, the trial court concluded reasonable efforts had been made and directed DHHS to file a supplemental termination petition. The trial court found the children were thriving in foster care and bonded with their foster parents, who expressed willingness to adopt.
At the May 2025 termination hearing, the children’s foster care worker testified that DHHS had not seriously explored guardianship because the mother had been hostile toward the foster parents during visitation. The trial court found statutory grounds for termination existed and ordered that termination was in the children’s best interests, citing the children’s stability and permanency with the foster family.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the statutory grounds for termination but vacated the best-interests determination and remanded for reconsideration of guardianship with the mother’s aunt. On statutory grounds, the court reversed the trial court’s findings under two of the five grounds relied upon. The trial court erred in finding desertion under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) because the mother proactively sought DHHS assistance, maintained contact with workers, attended court hearings, and visited the children as recently as November 2024—conduct inconsistent with abandonment. The court also reversed on MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), holding DHHS presented no evidence the mother physically or emotionally harmed the children or was likely to do so; the mother had no prior DHHS history and exhibited no abusive behavior.
However, the court affirmed termination was proper under at least three independent statutory grounds: continuation of conditions that led to adjudication (lack of suitable housing after eviction); failure to rectify other conditions (non-completion of substance abuse treatment); and failure to provide proper care and custody (partial compliance with the service plan and missed parenting times). Since only one ground need be proven, termination was justified on the merits.
On best interests, the court held the trial court committed plain error by failing to adequately consider guardianship with the mother’s aunt. DHHS never seriously explored guardianship with the aunt—only with the foster parents. The mother’s aunt had successfully cared for the children for months without intervention, was willing and capable, and participated in preliminary hearings and later proceedings. The trial court relied on the foster care worker’s testimony that guardianship would not work because the mother was hostile to foster parents, but this reasoning ignored the aunt as a potential guardian. The court also found the trial court’s preference for adoption over guardianship was improper, and its concern about the children’s young age (both under five) reflected an impermissible blanket policy against guardianship for young children. The trial court’s speculative worry that guardianship might fail in the future was insufficient to justify termination when a less restrictive alternative remained viable. On remand, the trial court must conduct a proper best-interests analysis considering guardianship with the aunt.
Key Takeaways
- Multiple independent statutory grounds can exist for termination, but trial courts must still consider guardianship as an alternative if appropriate relatives are available.
- A child’s young age alone cannot be used as a blanket policy to disfavor guardianship; courts must analyze the specific circumstances of each child.
- Guardianship, which preserves parental rights while providing stability and permanency, is a legitimate feature—not a flaw—and must receive serious consideration over termination and adoption.
- DHHS has an affirmative obligation to thoroughly explore guardianship with willing relatives, not merely default to adoption by foster parents because the parent was hostile to those specific caregivers.
- Trial court speculation about future guardianship failure does not justify terminating parental rights when less restrictive alternatives remain viable.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Michigan’s requirement that family integrity be preserved when possible. The court rejected a hierarchy that privileges adoption by nonrelatives over guardianship by relatives, emphasizing that guardianship maintains the parent-child relationship while still securing permanency and stability for the child. The ruling prohibits courts from applying categorical rules disfavoring guardianship based on a child’s age, requiring instead individualized, fact-specific best-interests analysis. For child welfare agencies, the decision imposes a clear duty to meaningfully explore guardianship alternatives with capable relatives before pursuing termination and adoption, even when the parent has struggled to reunify.
The decision is significant because it demonstrates that while statutory grounds for termination may be established, trial courts cannot simply default to the most restrictive remedy without thoroughly vetting less restrictive alternatives that protect children’s fundamental family relationships. The remand ensures the children’s specific circumstances—their relationship with their aunt, her demonstrated capacity to care for them, and her willingness to maintain family connection—receive proper consideration in determining what truly serves their best interests.