Background
MDF was born in September 2020 and spent most of his life with relatives, principally his maternal aunt. His mother’s parental rights were terminated in 2023. Respondent-father was incarcerated on a state drug conviction until May 2024 and admitted at adjudication that his incarceration had prevented him from protecting MDF.
After his release, the father regularly attended parenting time, began developing a bond with MDF, and participated in some services. But he did not establish verifiable legal income or suitable housing. A caseworker found drug paraphernalia, a scale, white residue, and marijuana being divided into bags at his residence. In December 2024, the father was arrested and later federally indicted on multiple drug-distribution and possession-with-intent-to-distribute charges. The trial court terminated his parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j), finding termination in MDF’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) established by clear and convincing evidence. More than 182 days had elapsed since the initial dispositional order, and the conditions underlying adjudication—the father’s incarceration and inability to provide for MDF—continued. Although incarceration or criminal history alone would not justify termination, the evidence supported findings that the father resumed distributing drugs while on parole and failed to resolve critical barriers involving housing and lawful income.
The court also upheld the best-interests finding. It recognized that the father’s parenting-time history and rudimentary bond with MDF weighed against termination, as did MDF’s placement with a relative. Those considerations were outweighed by the father’s repeated incarceration, failure to achieve stability, and reluctance to acknowledge MDF’s behavioral and educational needs. MDF was thriving with his maternal aunt, was strongly bonded to her family, wanted to remain there, and could obtain permanence through adoption.
Key Takeaways
- Incarceration or criminal history alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights, but renewed criminal conduct combined with unresolved barriers to reunification may establish a statutory ground.
- Partial participation in services did not overcome the father’s failure to secure suitable housing and verifiable lawful income.
- Relative placement and an existing parent-child bond weigh against termination, but they are not dispositive when the child’s need for safety, stability, and permanence strongly favors adoption.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between terminating parental rights merely because a parent is incarcerated and relying on evidence that the parent resumed criminal conduct and failed to remedy conditions preventing reunification. Courts must assess the parent’s conduct and progress under the service plan rather than treating imprisonment itself as dispositive.
It also confirms that relative placement does not bar termination. A trial court may find termination appropriate when the record shows that adoption by the relative offers the child substantially greater permanence, stability, and support.