Background
Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services petitioned in June 2024 to remove three children from their parents’ care after allegations that the mother and her partner had repeatedly physically abused them. The petition alleged that the father had not seen the children for more than a year and had failed to support or protect them. The father attended the initial preliminary hearing but no later proceedings, and the department reached him only once by telephone.
The trial court approved a treatment plan requiring the father to participate in evaluations, therapy, parenting classes, supervised visits, and other reunification services. Over nine months, he did not participate in any services, attend any of 68 available visits, maintain contact with the foster-care worker, or otherwise plan for the children. The trial court terminated his parental rights on statutory grounds of desertion, continuing conditions, and risk of harm, and found termination to be in the children’s best interests. On appeal, the father challenged only the best-interest finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err by finding termination was in the children’s best interests. The evidence showed the father’s near-total absence, complete failure to engage in his treatment plan, lack of suitable housing, failure to protect the children, and prior involvement in another child-protective-services investigation. The children said they wanted nothing to do with him and did not care whether his rights were terminated.
The court rejected the father’s argument that guardianship was a preferable alternative because of the children’s ages and permanency goals. Although guardianship may avoid termination in some cases, a planned guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement does not preclude termination when statutory grounds and best interests are established. Termination could provide stability and finality and permit the department to obtain needed medical treatment without seeking parental consent. The court also rejected the claims that the father needed more time to complete services and that the children faced no risk in his care.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s guardianship or alternative-placement goal does not prevent termination of parental rights when statutory grounds and the child’s best interests are otherwise established.
- A parent’s prolonged absence, missed visitation, and total failure to participate in reunification services may support a finding that termination offers needed stability and finality.
- Children’s indifference toward termination is not equivalent to active opposition, particularly when they express no interest in maintaining or restoring the parental relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan courts may terminate parental rights even when adoption is not the children’s intended permanency plan. Guardianship and other permanent-placement options remain available after termination and do not displace the statutory best-interest analysis.
It also illustrates that older children’s preferences are relevant but not dispositive. Courts may consider their stated wishes alongside the parent’s conduct, the children’s medical and emotional needs, and the practical benefits of achieving stability and finality.