In re Miller

In re MILLER, Minors. In re FOUST, Minor.

Nos. 355791, 355792, 355873

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 2, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Ionia Circuit Court Family Division LC Nos. 2018-000386-NA 2019-000203-NA

Before: Ronayne Krause, P.J., and Beckering and Boonstra, JJ.

Per Curiam.

In Docket No. 355791 of these consolidated appeals^[1] respondent-father appeals by right the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to the minor children, RM and EM. In Docket No. 355792, respondent-mother appeals by right the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to RM and EM. In Docket No. 355873, respondent-mother appeals by right the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to SF.^[2] We affirm in each docket.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 2018, petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS or petitioner), petitioned the trial court to remove RM and EM from respondent-mother's care, alleging that respondent-mother had recently been hospitalized after deliberately overdosing on an over-the-counter herbal supplement.^[3] The overdose had occurred while RM and EM were under her care and while she was pregnant with SF. The petition also alleged that respondent-mother had tested positive for methamphetamine and had both smoked and injected methamphetamine while caring for her children, and that a Children's Protective Services (CPS) worker had discovered that EM was left home alone on the date of the petition. Regarding respondent-father, the petition alleged that he was incarcerated at the time and that respondent-mother was the sole caregiver for RM and EM.^[4] The trial court entered an ex parte order removing RM and EM from respondent-mother's care and placing them with their paternal grandmother. Respondent-mother was subsequently arrested, charged, and convicted of fourth-degree child abuse related to her abandonment of EM, and was placed on probation.

Respondent-father entered a plea of admission to the allegations in the petition that he was incarcerated and was not currently able to provide for his children. Although respondent-mother initially requested an adjudication trial, she also entered a plea of admission to the allegations in the petition that she was RM and EM's mother and that she resided at the address listed in the petition. She entered a plea of no-contest to the allegations that she had left EM unattended in her home, and that the child was discovered by a service provider who arrived for a scheduled meeting. The trial court authorized the petition and exercised its jurisdiction over RM and EM. Both respondents were given case service plans and ordered to participate in various services. At the time of the preliminary hearing, RM and EM were placed with their paternal grandmother, which the LGAL recommended continuing but the DHHS Children's Service Specialist promised that respondent-mother's parents would be considered for placement. The specialist explained to the court that the only major concern for respondent-mother was her substance abuse, whereas the concerns for respondent-father were substance abuse and a history of committing domestic violence.

Over the next several months, respondent-mother made good progress with her service plan. In March 2019, RM and EM were returned to her care. Respondent-father had been given a supervised release from jail in October 2018, but had tested positive for methamphetamine in November 2018; he was reincarcerated and subsequently transferred to a residential substance-abuse rehabilitation program. He refused to participate in the first residential program and was transferred to another, where he again tested positive for methamphetamine, causing his transfer to a third residential program in February 2019.

Respondent-mother gave birth to SF in early 2019. On May 1, 2019, DHHS filed a supplemental petition for removal of RM and EM from respondent-mother's care, and an initial petition for the removal of SF. The petition stated that respondent-mother had tested positive for methamphetamine on April 25, 2019, and had failed to answer the door for a caseworker on April 30, 2019. The caseworker called the police because she could hear children inside; the responding police officer observed SF on the couch unattended, although respondent-mother ultimately answered the door. The trial court authorized the removal of all three children, who were placed in non-relative foster care. At a review hearing for RM and EM in May 2019, caseworker Jordan Lillie reported that respondent-mother had had negative drug screens since the positive screen in April, but had been having problems with parenting time, including leaving early, arriving late, and missing sessions entirely. Lillie reported that respondent-father hoped to be released from incarceration in September 2019.

In June 2019, respondent-mother entered a plea of no-contest to the allegations in SF's petition that respondent-mother had used methamphetamine and had tested positive for it, and that her methamphetamine use had prevented her from caring for SF. The trial court exercised jurisdiction over SF.^[5]

In June 2019, respondent-mother was arrested for a probation violation due to testing positive for methamphetamine in April and missing court-ordered drug screens. She was sentenced to 127 days in jail. At a review hearing in August 2019, the trial court was informed that respondent-father had been returned to prison because he had a positive drug screen while at the residential substance-abuse center. Lillie opined at this hearing that respondent-father had made no progress on his case service plan and that respondent-mother had made limited progress.

Respondent-mother was released from jail in November 2019. In March 2020, Lillie reported to the trial court that respondent-mother had missed drug screens for three weeks due to being depressed and suicidal. Respondent-mother was employed but did not have proper housing for the children. Lillie testified that respondent-father had been released from prison in January 2020 and had participated in some services, including a psychological evaluation and parenting time; however, Lillie opined that he had not benefitted from them.

On June 10, 2020, respondent-father tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, and missed a parenting-time visit and two supportive visitation visits. Respondent-father reported to Lillie that he was working and had moved in with his mother and stepfather. Respondent-mother had missed yet another drug screen, which she attributed to having fallen asleep. Lillie reported that respondent-mother had not been successfully screened in three months.^[6] Respondent-mother also missed two parenting-visits.^[7] She had resumed a relationship with SF's father, CF, but had left him after numerous incidents of domestic violence, at least one of which was mutual. The trial court ordered petitioner to expand parenting time for both respondents to include unsupervised parenting time by July 1, 2020. However, the following day, on June 11, 2020, respondent-mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Respondent-father tested positive for methamphetamine on June 12, 2020. The trial court modified its previous order to limit respondents' parenting time to supervised parenting time.

At a hearing on September 9, 2020, Lillie testified that petitioner would seek to terminate respondents' parental rights, noting that respondent-mother had not submitted to a drug screen since she had tested positive on June 11, had missed several therapy sessions, and had engaged in self-harm at a parenting time session in August, necessitating police involvement. Lillie also testified that respondent-mother was still in contact with CF and had had an altercation with him in a casino parking lot. Respondent-mother interrupted Lillie to deny that she had harmed herself in August and used several expletives to describe Lillie and the Ionia Department of Public Safety. Lillie testified that respondent-father had been dropped from the supportive visitation program for non-attendance, and had tested positive for methamphetamine seven times since June 2020. He had canceled five parenting-time visits since the end of July. Respondent-father had not provided any financial support for his children despite stating that he was working seven days a week. Respondent-father told the court that he did not have "to pay child support," and believed he had no obligation to support his children while they were not in his care. The trial court authorized petitioner to file a petition for termination of respondents' parental rights.

Petitioner filed a termination petition in October 2020, alleging that termination was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (3)(c)(ii), and (3)(j). The trial court held a termination hearing on November 30, 2020 and December 1, 2020. At the end of the hearing, the trial court held that statutory grounds for termination of respondents' parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court also held that termination of respondents' parental rights was in the children's best interests.

The trial court subsequently entered orders terminating respondents' parental rights. These appeals followed.

II. DOCKET NO. 355791

Respondent-father argues that petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to provide him with services or to place his children with relatives rather than seeking termination of his rights. He further argues that the trial court erred by holding that statutory grounds for termination had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, and by holding that termination of his parental rights was in RM's and EM's best...