Background
Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services petitioned to remove three children after allegations that their mother and her partner had repeatedly abused them. The petition also alleged that the children’s father had not seen them in more than a year and had failed to support or protect them. The trial court assumed jurisdiction and approved a parent-agency treatment plan requiring the father to participate in evaluations, therapy, parenting classes, supervised visits, and other reunification services.
Except for attending the initial preliminary hearing, the father was absent from the proceedings. He did not participate in any part of his treatment plan, maintain contact with the foster-care worker, plan for the children, or attend any of 68 visitation opportunities. The trial court terminated his parental rights on grounds of desertion, continuing conditions, and a reasonable likelihood of harm, and found termination to be in the children’s best interests. On appeal, the father challenged only the best-interest determination.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding termination to be in the children’s best interests. The father’s prolonged absence, complete failure to engage in services or visitation, lack of suitable housing, prior child-protective-services involvement, and failure to protect the children supported the ruling. The children said they wanted nothing to do with him and did not care whether his rights were terminated, while termination would provide stability and allow needed medical treatment without obtaining his consent.
The court rejected the father’s argument that guardianship was a preferable alternative because of the children’s ages and permanency goals. Although guardianship can avoid termination, a planned guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement does not bar termination when statutory grounds and the children’s best interests are established. The record also refuted the father’s claims that the children opposed termination and that he lacked sufficient time to comply with his treatment plan.
Key Takeaways
- A guardianship or another planned permanent living arrangement does not preclude termination of parental rights when the statutory and best-interest requirements are satisfied.
- A parent’s near-total absence, failure to visit, and refusal to engage in reunification services can support a finding that termination will provide children with needed stability and finality.
- Children’s indifference toward termination cannot be recast as affirmative opposition, particularly when they express no interest in maintaining a relationship with the parent.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan courts may terminate parental rights even when adoption is not the children’s permanency goal. Guardianship and other placement arrangements remain available after termination, and the governing question at the best-interest stage is whether termination serves the children—not whether a less permanent placement option exists.