Background
In August 2021, a 16-month-old child (DJ) was hospitalized after ingesting methamphetamine in respondents’ home. The child tested positive for amphetamines, had developmental delays and hip dysplasia, and exhibited signs of scabies. The trial court removed DJ from respondent-mother and his father. Respondent-mother faced pending criminal charges for first-degree criminal sexual conduct related to incidents from her teenage years and was subsequently placed on probation after pleading guilty.
After respondent-father assaulted respondent-mother in April 2022, causing her hospitalization, the couple gave birth to twins (M1 and M2) in July 2022. Both were removed from their care. A psychological evaluation in November 2022 revealed respondent-mother had an intellectual disability. Respondent-mother was incarcerated twice—June 2023 and August 2023 through April 2024—for violating a no-contact order with respondent-father. A third child (M3) was born in May 2025 and immediately removed.
The trial court initiated termination proceedings and conducted hearings in December 2024 and September 2025. Throughout the case, respondents made limited progress: they obtained housing and respondent-father secured employment, but they demonstrated inconsistent compliance with drug screens, counseling services, and domestic-violence programming. Respondent-father tested positive for cocaine in July 2025, and the family continued to operate as a single household despite ongoing domestic-violence concerns.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of parental rights for all four children. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and (j). Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i), the court found that parental rights to the children’s siblings had been previously terminated, and the parents failed to rectify the conditions that led to those prior terminations. Under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), the court found a reasonable likelihood the children would be harmed if returned to the parents’ care.
The court rejected respondent-father’s argument that termination at initial disposition was improper, holding that reasonable reunification efforts were not required because respondent-father’s parental rights to another child had been previously terminated and he failed to address the underlying conditions. The court also rejected respondent-mother’s claim that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her intellectual disability, finding that the DHHS employed teach-back methods, created specific checklists, repeatedly explained service requirements, and offered supportive services.
On the best-interest prong, the court found termination served the children’s interests despite positive parent-child bonds. The children had spent years in foster care, showed greater attachment to their foster parents, and required permanency. The trial court noted the children’s placement together in a preadoptive home and found reunification unlikely given the parents’ ongoing substance-abuse concerns, unaddressed domestic violence, and minimal service compliance.
Key Takeaways
- When a parent’s rights to one child have been terminated and the parent fails to rectify the underlying conditions, MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) permits termination of rights to a younger sibling without requiring reunification services or extended timeframes.
- The DHHS satisfies its ADA accommodation obligations under Hicks/Brown by using teach-back methods, creating written checklists, and repeatedly explaining service plans—even if a parent with intellectual disability claims confusion about whether recommendations were mandatory orders.
- A parent’s positive relationships with children and demonstrated love do not preclude termination when substance abuse persists (tested positive for cocaine), domestic violence remains unaddressed, and service compliance is minimal despite years of opportunity.
- The trial court may properly consider a parent’s emotional dysregulation, anger management failures, and ongoing criminality (conviction for domestic violence against a different victim) as evidence supporting termination and best-interest findings.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of the “sibling termination” ground in Michigan child-welfare law. Once a parent loses custody of one child due to abuse or neglect and fails to remedy those conditions over years, Michigan courts need not indefinitely provide additional services before terminating parental rights to younger siblings. The ruling also demonstrates that courts will credit trial judges’ observations about children’s comparative attachment levels (more excited to see foster parents than biological parent) and will not second-guess a trial court’s determination that permanency outweighs the possibility of future reunification.
The opinion reinforces that parents with intellectual disabilities do not receive a de novo service-provision entitlement in termination proceedings, but rather must show that specific accommodations requested were withheld. Here, the DHHS’s documented use of plain-language explanations and multiple reminders satisfied due process. The decision also shows Michigan courts will consider cohabitation dynamics—when both parents share a household, substance use or criminal conduct by one parent affects the reunification calculus for both.