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 partner repeatedly physically abused them. The petition alleged that the father 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 parent-agency 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 did not attend later proceedings, participate in services, or maintain contact with the children or foster-care worker. He missed all 68 offered visits. In February 2026, the trial court terminated his parental rights for desertion, continuing conditions, and a reasonable likelihood of harm if the children were returned to him. It found termination served the children’s best interests even though adoption was not their permanency goal and their plans instead involved guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding termination was in the children’s best interests. The father did not challenge the existence of statutory grounds for termination, so the appeal concerned only the best-interest determination.
The record showed that the father made no reunification effort, failed to participate in any part of his treatment plan, and had no contact with the children during the case. The children said they wanted nothing to do with him and did not care whether his rights were terminated. Termination also offered stability and finality and would allow DHHS to obtain needed medical treatment for two children without seeking parental consent through the court.
The court rejected the father’s arguments that guardianship was preferable, the children opposed termination, he needed more time to complete services, and there was no evidence of potential harm. Guardianship and other permanency arrangements remained available after termination; the children had expressed indifference rather than opposition; and the father’s prolonged absence gave no reason to expect additional time would produce compliance. His failure to protect the children, unsuitable housing, and involvement in another open child-protective investigation also supported the trial court’s assessment of risk.
Key Takeaways
- A guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement does not preclude termination when statutory grounds and the children’s best interests are established.
- A parent’s complete failure to engage in services, attend visits, or maintain contact can support a finding that termination provides needed stability and finality.
- Children’s indifference to termination is not equivalent to opposition, particularly when they express no interest in maintaining or restoring the parental relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan courts may terminate parental rights even when adoption is not the planned outcome. Termination may still advance older children’s permanency goals by ending an absent parent’s legal authority, facilitating medical decisions, and allowing guardianship or other permanent-placement options to proceed.
It also illustrates the difficulty of arguing that more reunification time was required when the parent remained effectively absent throughout the case and made no progress despite repeated agency efforts to establish contact.