Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services petitioned for jurisdiction over CP shortly after his birth and sought immediate termination of his mother’s parental rights. At that time, the mother lived in Hope Project transitional housing, where children could not reside, and reported that she lacked income and could not meet CP’s immediate needs.
In 2017, while addicted to heroin and, according to trial evidence, being trafficked and coerced by a man who had raped and threatened her, the mother sexually abused her older child, MP. She was convicted, imprisoned, placed on the sex-offender registry, and voluntarily released her rights to MP. By the time of CP’s case, however, the mother had completed substantial therapy, recovery, parenting, and support programming; held full-time employment; remained sober; and had supervised contact with MP approved by her parole team and MP’s adoptive grandmother.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over CP under MCL 712A.2(b)(2). At the petition’s filing, CP had no suitable home because the mother’s housing did not permit children and she had not secured alternative housing for the newborn.
But the court held that DHHS had not proved any statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. Although the mother could not then provide CP housing, the record did not show that she could not do so within a reasonable time. Her prior abuse of MP was probative but not conclusive of a future risk to CP; the trial court failed to give adequate weight to the eight-year passage of time, changed circumstances, rehabilitation, and support evidence. The court affirmed jurisdiction, reversed the termination ruling, vacated the termination order, and remanded.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s lack of a child-appropriate home at filing can support jurisdiction even if the parent personally has housing.
- Sex-offender registration may permit an initial termination request, but DHHS still must prove a termination ground by clear and convincing evidence.
- Past abuse of a sibling cannot alone establish a present likelihood of harm where substantial evidence shows changed circumstances and rehabilitation.
Why It Matters
The decision limits reliance on anticipatory-neglect principles in termination cases. Courts must assess the parent’s current fitness and the present likelihood of harm, rather than treating grave past conduct as dispositive without record support that its effects persist.