Background
Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services petitioned in June 2024 to remove three children from their parents’ care after allegations that the mother and her cohabitating partner repeatedly physically abused them. As to the father, DHHS alleged that he had not seen the children in more than a year and had failed to support or protect them. The trial court assumed jurisdiction and approved a treatment plan requiring the father to participate in evaluations, therapy, parenting classes, supervised visits, and other reunification services.
After attending the initial preliminary hearing, the father missed every subsequent proceeding, did not participate in any component of his treatment plan, and attended none of 68 available visits. The trial court terminated his parental rights under statutory provisions addressing desertion, continuing conditions, and the likelihood of harm, finding termination to be in the children’s best interests. The father appealed only the best-interest determination, arguing principally that guardianship was preferable and that he had not received enough time to complete services.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding termination was in the children’s best interests. The evidence showed the father’s near-total absence, complete failure to engage in services or plan for the children, and lack of contact throughout the case. The children said they wanted nothing to do with him and did not care whether his rights were terminated. The record also supported the conclusion that additional time would not produce compliance or repair the family bond.
The court rejected the argument that guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement precluded termination. Although those options remained among the children’s permanency goals and adoption was not the recommended plan, termination could still give the children greater finality and stability and facilitate medical treatment without obtaining parental consent. The father’s lack of suitable housing, failure to protect the children, and prior involvement in another child-protective investigation also supported concern that returning the children to him would pose a risk of harm.
Key Takeaways
- A guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement does not foreclose termination when statutory grounds and the children’s best interests are otherwise established.
- A parent’s complete nonparticipation in services, hearings, and visitation can strongly support a finding that termination provides needed stability and finality.
- The children’s indifference to termination was not equivalent to active opposition, particularly when they expressed no interest in maintaining a relationship or reunifying with the parent.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that termination may serve a child’s best interests even when adoption is not the planned outcome. Michigan courts may consider whether severing parental rights will advance other permanency arrangements, reduce continuing uncertainty, and permit necessary decisions about a child’s care.
It also illustrates the difficulty of challenging the time allowed for reunification when the parent remained unavailable and made no effort to begin the treatment plan. The appellate court focused on the father’s conduct throughout the proceedings rather than the theoretical availability of additional time.