Background
Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services removed respondent-mother’s six oldest children after she housed them with her father, a registered sex offender who had sexually abused her as a child, and then failed to cooperate with a safety plan. The proceedings also involved allegations of medical neglect and domestic violence. Mother was ordered to secure safe housing and participate in counseling and parenting education, but the trial court later found that her housing remained inadequate, her participation was inconsistent, and she had not sufficiently benefited from services.
While that case was pending, mother gave birth prematurely to twins, AG and MG, who spent several months in neonatal intensive care. DHHS filed a separate petition concerning the twins and sought termination at the initial disposition. In January 2026, the trial court terminated mother’s parental rights to all eight children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j), finding that the underlying conditions persisted, returning the children posed a risk of harm, termination served their best interests, and DHHS had made reasonable reunification efforts.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed termination as to the six oldest children. Mother challenged the continuing-conditions ground under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) but did not challenge the independent harm ground under subsection (j), which alone was sufficient to support termination. The court also found no clear error under either ground because mother still lacked suitable housing, had not consistently completed counseling or parenting education, and had not demonstrated an adequate understanding of the risks posed to her children.
The court likewise upheld the best-interest and reasonable-efforts findings concerning the six oldest children. The record showed that the children needed permanency, mother had not sufficiently benefited from services, and DHHS had offered counseling, parenting services, supportive visitation, a psychological evaluation, nutrition instruction, and supervised parenting time.
The court vacated termination as to the twins. Although mother had not raised the issue, the trial court plainly erred by terminating her rights at the initial disposition without first making the judicial determination required by MCL 712A.19a that reasonable reunification efforts had been made or were unnecessary. On remand, DHHS must prepare a case service plan and the trial court must order reasonable reunification efforts unless it properly determines that such efforts are not required.
Key Takeaways
- An unchallenged statutory ground independently supporting termination can make a challenge to another statutory ground nondispositive.
- Incomplete participation and failure to benefit from reunification services supported termination as to the six oldest children.
- Before terminating parental rights at an initial disposition, the trial court must make the reunification-efforts determination required by MCL 712A.19a.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that evidentiary support for termination does not excuse compliance with the procedural protections governing initial dispositions. Even though the record may have supported termination of mother’s rights to the twins, the absence of the required judicial determination concerning reunification efforts required vacatur and remand.
For appellate practitioners, the opinion also illustrates the importance of challenging every independent statutory ground for termination. Leaving one sufficient ground unchallenged may prevent relief even if another ground is disputed.