Background
CKA’s biological mother died when CKA was an infant. Respondent-mother later adopted CKA, and the couple divorced in Kansas in 2019. Despite the divorce, the parties continued to cohabit and had additional children together. Respondents had a documented history of domestic violence and prior CPS involvement. In January 2023, when CKA was nine years old, respondent-mother reported CKA had run away from home, prompting a hospital evaluation at the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital. Medical personnel discovered bruising inconsistent with the parents’ claim of self-inflicted injuries, and CKA reported being struck with a hockey stick by respondent-father and repeatedly hit in the head and face by respondent-mother. CKA also disclosed being forced to exercise in the garage at night instead of sleeping, being given far less food than her siblings, and being threatened with punishment if she disclosed the abuse.
Hospital staff further found that CKA suffered severe nutritional deficiency, including iron deficiency anemia requiring a blood transfusion. Despite this, respondents contacted the hospital requesting that CKA’s food intake be restricted. CKA and her siblings were removed from respondents’ home in February 2023, and CKA was placed with her biological maternal grandmother. The Wayne County Circuit Court assumed jurisdiction, and DHHS implemented a treatment plan requiring respondents to engage in domestic violence counseling, anger management, parenting classes, therapy, and other services. Respondents completed portions of the plan and eventually regained custody of CKA’s siblings in January 2025, but made no progress toward reunification with CKA and continued to deny that any abuse had occurred.
Throughout the proceedings, CKA consistently refused contact with respondents and her siblings. She thrived in her grandmother’s care, excelling academically, enrolling in honors classes and sports, and showing none of the behavioral issues respondents had attributed to her. In April 2025, the trial court established a juvenile guardianship with CKA’s biological maternal grandmother. Both respondent-mother and respondent-father appealed, and the Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order establishing a guardianship. On the reasonable-efforts question, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification. The agency had provided respondents with a comprehensive service plan including Families First, community resources, family team meetings, parenting classes, therapy, and domestic violence and anger management counseling. The court noted that while aggravated circumstances were amply supported by the record — including evidence of battering, torture, severe physical abuse, and life-threatening malnutrition — the agency nonetheless went beyond what was required and provided reunification services. The court found that the dispositive failure was respondents’ own: they did not benefit from the services offered and continued to deny any responsibility for CKA’s injuries even in the face of contrary medical evidence and respondent-father’s own prior statements to a psychologist.
The court also rejected respondents’ argument that the trial court improperly delegated parenting-time decisions to CKA herself. Under MCL 712A.13a(13), a court may suspend parenting time where contact, even if supervised, would be harmful to the child’s physical health or mental well-being. Here, CKA’s therapists did not recommend family therapy after an initial session proved unproductive, an independent psychological evaluation documented physical and emotional abuse, and foster care workers testified that family therapy would likely never be appropriate given CKA’s consistent refusal to engage. The court found the trial court properly relied on therapist recommendations and the totality of the record, not merely CKA’s stated preferences, in suspending parenting time.
On best interests, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Applying the factors set out in MCL 722.23, the court found that CKA had been in a stable, thriving placement with her grandmother for two years; that respondents demonstrated an inability to provide love, guidance, food, and medical care; that respondents admitted to ongoing domestic violence; and that CKA and her grandmother were well-bonded and both sought the guardianship. The court further held that CKA’s best interests overrode the general preference for sibling placement, given the siblings’ court-documented cruelty toward her and CKA’s own consistent refusal of sibling contact.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable reunification efforts by DHHS do not guarantee reunification — parents bear a commensurate obligation to participate in and demonstrably benefit from services, and persistent denial of documented abuse can constitute a failure to benefit that bars reunification.
- A trial court may suspend parenting time entirely, without minimum weekly contact, when competent evidence — including therapist recommendations and independent psychological evaluations — supports that contact would be harmful to the child’s mental well-being under MCL 712A.13a(13).
- When appointing a juvenile guardian under MCL 712A.19a(9)(c), courts may draw on the best-interest factors of the Child Custody Act (MCL 722.23), and the individual child’s best interests override the general preference for keeping siblings together when those siblings have participated in or been instruments of the child’s abuse.
- Evidence of battering, torture, severe physical abuse, and life-threatening malnutrition may constitute “aggravated circumstances” under MCL 722.638 and MCL 712A.19a(2), eliminating the reasonable-efforts requirement — though here the agency voluntarily provided services regardless.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that reunification in child protective proceedings is not a one-way obligation. While DHHS must make reasonable efforts, parents must engage meaningfully and demonstrate changed behavior — particularly when the underlying conduct was severe. A parent’s continued denial of well-documented abuse, in the face of medical findings, independent psychological evaluation, and even the parent’s own prior admissions, can itself establish that the parent has failed to benefit from services and that reunification remains unsafe.
The opinion also provides useful appellate guidance on the suspension of parenting time in cases involving severe child abuse. Courts are not required to order minimum parenting time contacts when therapists and evaluators conclude that contact would harm the child’s mental health, and a court’s reliance on those professional recommendations — rather than solely on the child’s expressed preference — will withstand appellate scrutiny. For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of building a thorough clinical record to support restrictions on parenting time when a child has experienced trauma at the hands of a parent.