Background
The respondent appealed from a trial court order terminating her parental rights to two minor children, MBM (age 12) and SJH (age 9). The original petition alleged that respondent neglected or refused to provide care and custody of the children, and that the home environment was unfit for children to live in. The children were removed and placed in foster care with relatives—MBM with J. Henley and SJH with A. Henton (the paternal grandmother).
The termination proceeding began more than three years after an initial dispositional order was issued in March 2023. By the time of the termination hearing in September 2025, more than 182 days had elapsed, satisfying the temporal requirement for termination under Michigan law. The respondent challenged the trial court’s finding that statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding that the trial court properly determined the statutory ground under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) was met by clear and convincing evidence. This ground applies when conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood they will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings and its factual determinations, applying the clear error standard of review.
The evidence showed that respondent had not achieved meaningful change in the conditions existing at the time of adjudication. Despite three years and opportunities for services, respondent did not maintain stable housing (obtaining an apartment for only eight months before losing it due to financial difficulties), did not complete mandated parenting classes despite multiple referrals, and did not complete recommended individual therapy. Critically, respondent denied responsibility for the children’s removal, contradicting her earlier no-contest plea, and suggested the fabrication allegations and instructed the children to lie to “gain financial currency from the courts.”
On the best-interests analysis, the court found termination served both children’s interests. Both MBM and SJH expressed preferences to remain with their current caretakers rather than be reunified with respondent. Both children had adapted to stable homes, excelled academically, and received appropriate services. The caretakers were in the process of adopting the children. While acknowledging the parent-child bond, the court weighed the children’s expressed preferences, demonstrated stability and permanence in their current placements, and the likelihood of disruption from continued reunification efforts against the emotional connection to respondent.
Key Takeaways
- Parental rights can be terminated under Michigan law when, after 182+ days, conditions leading to a child’s removal remain unchanged despite available services and time to make changes.
- Failure to complete mandated programs (parenting classes, individual therapy), combined with denial of responsibility and resistance to acknowledging underlying issues, constitutes substantial evidence of unchanged conditions.
- Even when a strong parent-child bond exists, termination may be appropriate if the child’s stability, permanence, and expressed preferences for remaining with current caregivers outweigh that bond.
- A parent’s treatment of other children and unaddressed mental health issues are probative of parenting ability and likelihood of future neglect.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates Michigan courts’ practical approach to parental termination in child welfare cases. The court emphasizes that termination is not punitive but child-focused—prioritizing permanence and stability for children who have already waited years for their parent to address foundational issues. By requiring meaningful evidence of change rather than mere compliance with isolated service requirements, the decision reflects the principle that parental rights depend not just on opportunity but on demonstrated capacity and willingness to change.
For child welfare practitioners and parents in the system, the decision underscores that denying responsibility, refusing services, citing scheduling conflicts rather than genuine barriers, and inconsistent engagement with reunification efforts will weigh heavily against termination reversal. The three-year timeframe and the children’s clear preferences also reflect Michigan’s concern with avoiding prolonged limbo for children awaiting reunification, particularly when caregivers stand ready to adopt and provide permanent homes.