In re A K-L Hunt

1

In re A K-L HUNT, Minor.

No. 359711

Court of Appeals of Michigan

August 11, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

St Joseph Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 19-001023-NA

Before: RICK, P.J., and BOONSTRA and O'BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals by right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to his minor child, AK. (Order following hearing to terminate parental rights, 9/23/21). We affirm.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent is the legal father of AK.^[1] In 2019, respondent resided with his wife (AH) and AK. On December 12, 2019, petitioner Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS or petitioner), filed a petition with the trial court requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over AK and remove respondent from the home. (Petition, 12/12/19). The petition alleged that respondent had physically assaulted AH in the home on December 9, 2019, and that AK was "in the home and crying" during the incident. (Id.). AK was approximately one month old at the time of the incident. The petition also alleged that respondent had a history of domestic violence against his romantic partners, and had served a prison sentence for aggravated domestic violence against a previous partner. (Id.). The petition also alleged that respondent's rights to another child were terminated in 2009 and that respondent "did not participate in services to address barriers of domestic violence and substance abuse." (Id.).

At the removal hearing, respondent entered a plea of admission to the allegations that he had committed domestic violence against AH, and that he had "a pattern or history of domestic violence" as well as "ongoing, unresolved incidents of domestic violence." (Removal hearing transcript, 12/12/19, pp 13-14). Petitioner agreed not to seek termination of respondent's parental rights and that it instead would provide services aimed at reunification. (Id. at 6). The trial court took jurisdiction over AK and ordered that respondent leave the home. (See order removing alleged abuser from child's home, 12/12/19). The trial court ordered that respondent submit to a drug screen before beginning supervised parenting time, and ordered respondent to have no contact with AH. (Order of adjudication, 12/12/19).

At some point over the next year, respondent was convicted of domestic violence against AH and sentenced to probation. Respondent attended a dispositional review hearing in March 2020; his caseworker testified that he had been unable to reach respondent by in-person visit or mail, but that respondent had sent her a text message the previous week. (Disp review hearing, 3/12/20, 4-5). The caseworker testified that respondent had not yet participated in any services or parenting time, but had submitted to a drug screen on the day of the hearing. (Id. at 6-7). Respondent was referred to several services, including a psychological evaluation, domestic violence counseling, and the Batterers Intervention program.

Unfortunately, respondent's engagement in March represented a high-water mark in his cooperation with DHHS and in his participation in services. Respondent appeared for a review hearing in June 2020, but decided to leave and allow his attorney to represent him. (Disp review hearing, 6/11/20). Respondent's caseworker testified that respondent had "left a couple messages with Secure Counseling to set up his domestic violence inventory," but had not pursued the matter further. The caseworker had had no contact with respondent since the end of March. However, the caseworker did indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic may have interfered with respondent's efforts to engage in services, and added that respondent had participated in some supervised parenting time in March that had gone well. (Id. at 4-5). Respondent did not attend the next dispositional review hearing in September 2020, and his caseworker testified that she had been unable to reach him by phone, text message, in-person visit, or mail. (Disp review hearing, 9/10/20, 4-5). The caseworker testified that respondent had made no progress on his treatment plan and had not taken any steps to address his issues with domestic violence or mental health. (Id. at 5). DHHS requested that the trial court order it to initiate proceedings to terminate respondent's parental rights, but the trial court declined to do so (Id. at 9).

The dispositional hearing in December 2020 was more of the same; respondent did not attend, his caseworker had not heard from him, and there was no evidence that he had engaged in services of any kind. (Disp review hearing, 12/17/20, 3-4). The trial court ordered the goal changed to termination and ordered DHHS to initiate proceedings to terminate respondent's parental rights.

In January 2021, respondent violated the terms of his probation by having contact with AK's mother, and was incarcerated in St. Joseph County Jail to serve out the remainder of his one-year sentence. (Supplemental petition, 4/21/21; see also termination hearing transcript, 9/23/11, 11). At a review hearing in March 2021, respondent's caseworker testified that respondent was incarcerated for a probation violation, and that prior to his incarceration he had not completed any court-ordered services despite having received referrals. (Disp review hearing, 3/11/21, 5). No services were currently available to respondent in jail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. at 6).

Respondent's termination hearing was originally scheduled for June 4, 2021. However, at the beginning of the hearing, respondent's counsel informed the trial court that respondent intended to retain alternate counsel, and that respondent's estimated release date from jail was in July. Respondent testified via phone and confirmed this information, stating that his release date would be July 29. (Termination hearing, 6/4/21, 3-6). The trial court agreed to adjourn the termination hearing until sometime after August 2021. (Id. at 7).

At a review hearing in September 2021, respondent's counsel testified that respondent was still incarcerated, having lost his "good time" credits due to "rules violations in the kitchen." (Disp review hearing, 9/9/21). Respondent's termination hearing was held on September 23, 2021. Respondent was still incarcerated. (Termination hearing, 9/23/11, 11). Respondent's caseworker testified that respondent's parole violation involved not only contact with AK's mother, but "reports of another domestic violence incident against [AH]." AK was in the home at the time respondent made contact with AH and allegedly committed domestic violence against her, although the caseworker was not aware whether AK had witnessed the incident. (Id. at 23-24).

In the year between the adjudication and respondent's re-incarceration, respondent's compliance with services was limited to providing one drug screen, which was positive for THC. (Id. at 11). Respondent made no contact with DHHS from March 2020 until after his arrest in January 2021. (Id.). Specifically, respondent never even began to address his issues with domestic violence, despite being referred multiple times to specific services to address this issue. (Id. at 1213). Respondent did complete some supervised parenting time prior to March of 2020, although the caseworker testified that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted respondent's ability to exercise his parenting time safely. (Id.).

The trial court found that statutory grounds for termination of respondent's parental rights to AK under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court stated that "the proofs here are very clear, that there was a whole year, basically, that went by, from December of 2019, that [respondent] did absolutely nothing that the Court ordered him to do." (Id. at 34, 36-37). The trial court also found that the statutory grounds of MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court subsequently determined that termination was in AK's best interests, noting that AK lived with his mother, who "has been the focus of the domestic violence" from respondent, and holding that there was no bond between respondent and AK, whom respondent had last seen in March 2020. (Id. at 40-42).

This appeal followed.

II. REASONABLE EFFORTS AT REUNIFICATION

Respondent argues that petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to provide him with services aimed at reunification, specifically during the time that respondent was incarcerated. We disagree.

We review for clear error a trial court's decision that a statutory ground for termination of parental rights has been established. In re JK, 468 Mich. 202, 209; 661 N.W.2d 216 (2003). We also review for clear error a trial court's factual findings. See MCR 3.911(K); In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich.App. 426, 430; 871 N.W.2d 868 (2015). The trial court's decision "is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." In re JK, 468 Mich. at 209-210.

The petitioner must only establish one statutory ground for termination of a respondent's parental rights. See In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich.App. 35, 41; 823 N.W.2d 144 (2012). Therefore, so long as the trial court properly found at least one ground for termination, any error by the trial court in finding that another statutory ground also existed is harmless. In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich.App. 111, 118; 624 N.W.2d 472 (2000).

To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the services provided by DHHS, respondent must object or indicate that the services provided to him were inadequate. In re Frey, 297 Mich.App. 242, 247; 824 N.W.2d 569 (2012). Respondent did not raise this issue with ...