Background
The child, SMR, entered protective custody in December 2024 after his parents spent the night with him in a tent in approximately 37-degree weather while he had a severe cough and double ear infection. Following an argument between the parents, police found SMR outside the tent in the snow, secured in a car seat without shoes. The father was arrested for domestic violence, and the mother was determined unable to care for the child.
After the parents entered no-contest pleas, the trial court assumed jurisdiction in January 2025. Both parents made little progress under their treatment plans. At the October 2025 termination trial, the mother had obtained housing but had not adequately addressed domestic violence, substance abuse, mental-health concerns, or parenting deficiencies. The father had not secured suitable housing or meaningfully addressed his alcohol abuse, mental-health needs, or history of domestic violence. The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), finding termination in SMR’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court did not clearly err by finding clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). More than 182 days had passed since the initial dispositional order, the conditions leading to adjudication continued to exist, and there was no reasonable likelihood that either parent would rectify those conditions within a reasonable time considering SMR’s young age.
For the mother, unresolved conditions included domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental-health concerns. Her participation in some services did not establish progress because she often failed to complete or benefit from them. For the father, unsuitable housing, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and mental-health concerns remained unresolved, and his completion of limited services did not translate into meaningful improvement. Because one statutory ground was sufficient, the court declined to address subsections (g) and (j).
The court also upheld the finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination served SMR’s best interests. Although each parent asserted a bond with the child and pointed to positive visits or recent progress, neither had demonstrated an ability to parent safely. SMR was thriving in foster care, his caregivers were open to adoption, and termination offered him permanence and stability.
Key Takeaways
- Participation in court-ordered services is insufficient when a parent does not complete or meaningfully benefit from those services.
- A parent’s persistent failure to correct the conditions leading to adjudication may support termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), particularly when a young child has already spent substantial time in foster care.
- A parent-child bond does not preclude termination when unresolved safety concerns and the child’s need for permanence weigh in favor of termination.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts assess substantive progress, not merely attendance or technical compliance, when deciding whether the conditions that led to child-welfare jurisdiction have been rectified. Continued domestic violence, substance abuse, unstable housing, and failure to benefit from treatment can support termination even when parents have completed selected components of their service plans.
It also confirms that, after statutory grounds are established, a court may consider the child’s progress in foster care, the possibility of adoption, and the relative stability offered by the placement as part of the child-focused best-interests analysis.