Background
Michigan child-welfare authorities petitioned for jurisdiction over the child after repeated incidents involving respondent-mother’s substance use, domestic violence with her boyfriend, and an unsuitable home. Mother pleaded no contest to the amended petition in April 2023 and later spent approximately eight months in jail for assaulting her boyfriend. Although the caseworker met with her monthly during her incarceration, the jail offered no substantive services or visitation.
After her release, mother participated in some therapy, classes, drug screening, and other services, but she continued living with the same boyfriend amid recurring police calls and domestic disputes. Experts disagreed about aspects of her parenting capacity, but evidence showed a poor parent-child bond and that visits caused the child anxiety. The trial court terminated her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j), finding that the conditions leading to adjudication persisted, returning the child posed a risk of harm, and termination served the child’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts despite the lack of services and visitation during mother’s incarceration. The caseworker maintained monthly contact in jail, reviewed the treatment plan with her, and helped connect her with services after release. The Department also provided available housing referrals and continued visitation after the child moved two hours away, with the caseworker personally transporting the child.
The court also rejected mother’s expert-funding claim because the trial court granted the requested funding for Dr. Julia Cunningham’s parenting evaluation and expressly permitted a later request for additional testing, which mother never made. Clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) because domestic violence, unsafe housing, and parenting deficiencies remained unresolved with no reasonable prospect of timely correction. Although the trial court improperly relied on mother’s lawful marijuana use, the error was harmless given the remaining evidence. The child’s weak bond with mother, need for stability, progress in foster care, and prospect of adoption also supported the best-interests determination.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable reunification efforts may be established despite incarceration-related service limitations when the agency maintains contact, plans for post-release services, and meaningfully resumes reunification efforts after release.
- A parent cannot obtain appellate relief for inadequate expert funding when the trial court granted the requested evaluation, allowed requests for additional funding, and no further request was made.
- A trial court may not treat lawful marijuana use as grounds for denying custody or visitation without a clearly articulated and substantiated unreasonable danger to the child, though the error here was harmless.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Michigan appellate courts evaluate reunification efforts when a parent spends a substantial portion of the case incarcerated and local jail rules restrict services and visitation. The inquiry considers the agency’s efforts as a whole, including planning during incarceration and assistance after release.
It also cautions trial courts against relying on lawful marijuana use without evidence of danger to the child. Nevertheless, unresolved domestic violence, unsuitable housing, deficient parenting, and the child’s need for permanence can independently support termination.