Trial Court Wrongly Held That Relative Placement Is Favored Over Termination Of Parental Rights
The trial court in this termination of parental rights case applied the wrong legal framework when assessing the children’s best interests, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.
As a result, the Court of Appeals in In re Smith, Minors (Docket No. 368911) vacated the trial court’s orders declining to terminate the respondents’ parental rights and remanded the matter for a redetermination of the children’s best interests under the proper legal framework.
The respondents have four children, JJS, DRS, RLS and JGS. Amid allegations of neglect and physical abuse, two of the children had been placed with a cousin, who was interested in adopting them. The other two children had been placed with a paternal great aunt, GA.
In 2022, the petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services, sought to terminate the respondents’ parental rights to the children under MCL 712A.19b as follows:
concerning JJS – under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), (j), and (m)(i) and (ii).
concerning DRS and RLS – under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a), (g), (j), and (k)(i).
concerning JGS – under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j).
The respondents pleaded no contest to allegations that statutory grounds for termination existed. The Wayne County Circuit Court accepted the respondents’ plea and held a hearing on the best interests of the children, where the foster-care caseworker testified that termination was in the children’s best interests. The trial court, however, ruled that termination was not in the children’s best interests. According to the trial court, guardianships with the existing relative placements were preferable to termination. The petitioner appealed this decision.
The Court of Appeals ruled the trial court applied the incorrect legal framework when analyzing the children’s best interests by “focus[ing] almost exclusively” on the children’s placement with relatives. “In doing so, the trial court incorrectly surmised that this Court has a policy favoring guardianships over termination of parental rights.”
Judge Michael F. Gadola, Judge Michelle M. Rick and Judge Philip P. Mariani were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion and order.
No ‘Policy’ On Guardianships
On appeal, the petitioner argued the trial court wrongly determined that termination of parental rights was not in the children’s best interests.
The Court of Appeals agreed.
“In this case, the trial court clearly erred when it concluded it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate respondents’ parental rights because the trial court’s analysis focused almost exclusively on the children’s placement with relatives,” the Court of Appeals wrote.
“The trial court stated: ‘The Court of Appeals clearly likes guardianships, and would prefer them over terminations. Now, once upon a time the Court of Appeals was bluntly telling me that they expected me to set them up, and if I did not set one up, they’d reverse me, … . I think the Court of Appeals likes me to head in the direction of guardianships when I can, so I do.’”
The trial court erred in this regard, the Court of Appeals stated. “[T]his Court does not have a ‘policy’ favoring (or disfavoring) guardianships. Rather, this Court considers each case on its own merits, as should a trial court assessing the best interests of a child. … Further, while a guardianship may be a helpful tool in circumstances where a parent is making progress toward reunification, the facts of each specific case must be considered to assess whether a guardianship, by its nature tending toward the temporary, is appropriate in a specific case as a permanent solution for a specific young child in need of a long-term home.”
Here, the trial court did not fully consider “other relevant and important factors” because it focused on the “perception that guardianship was a preferred outcome,” the Court of Appeals observed. “The children have spent virtually no time in respondents’ care because each of the four children was removed from respondents’ custody shortly after birth. … Respondents’ failure to comply with the requirements of the treatment plan is evidence that the children are likely to be harmed if returned to respondents’ care. In sum, at the time the trial court made its determination, respondents had demonstrated no progress toward overcoming their substance abuse, had not obtained suitable housing, and had not demonstrated that they will ever be able adequately to care for the children. As a result, the record as it currently stands indicates that it is unlikely that the children ever will be returned to the care of respondents.”
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals said the record also suggested there were concerns with the relative placement. “Despite respondent-father’s plea of no contest to attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his minor niece, who was under age 13, GA testified that she was not concerned about respondent-father’s convictions and did not believe the allegations of the victim (her granddaughter).”
Accordingly, the trial court “clearly erred by concluding under the circumstances that the benefits of guardianship with a relative outweighed all other relevant considerations,” the Court of Appeals said. “The trial court’s orders declining to terminate respondents’ parental rights are vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for redetermination of the children’s best interests applying the proper legal framework.”
The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court, on remand, to evaluate the children’s best interests based on updated information. “In considering this matter on remand, the trial court should bear in mind that this Court has no ‘policy’ regarding guardianships and should consider the best interests of each child in this case based upon the specific facts of this case.”
