Opinion
No. 339260
03-20-2018
In re FLORES, Minors.
UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court Family Division
LC No. 14-518135-NA Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and BOONSTRA and TUKEL, JJ. PER CURIAM.
The circuit court terminated respondent-mother's parental rights to her three children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to adjudication continue to exist), (c)(ii) (other conditions exist that cause the child to come within the court's jurisdiction), (g) (failure to provide proper care or custody, and (j) (reasonable likelihood that child would be harmed if returned to parent's home). Respondent contends that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provided inadequate reunification services and that termination of her parental rights was not in the children's best interests. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The DHHS took OF, LF, and AF into care in May 2015, based on substantiated reports of physical abuse at the hands of their parents. Respondent was also living with the children in a home with her mother and sister, both of whom were on the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry. Respondent's sister had used marijuana and crack cocaine in the children's presence and had physically abused the children as well. Respondent admitted these facts, allowing the court to take jurisdiction over her children. The children were eventually placed with their paternal grandparents.
Respondent, who had previously been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was ordered to participate in various counseling services, attend parenting classes, and visit with the children. During unsupervised parenting time sessions, respondent continued to physically abuse the children. A DHS worker reported that respondent had also brought the children to the home of her mother and sister. Supervised parenting time sessions were ordered, but were delayed several weeks because respondent would not sign paperwork authorizing a trauma assessment for the children. Family counseling was also delayed as respondent repeatedly vacillated regarding whether she wanted to plan for the children with their father or on her own. Other delays in the proceedings were caused by the revolving door of caseworkers and service providers assigned to respondent's case.
Two years after the children were taken into care, respondent admitted that statutory grounds existed to terminate her parental rights. The court conducted a best-interest hearing before deciding to terminate respondent's parental rights. The court acknowledged that certain delays in the proceedings were caused by the DHHS. However, even with services and under the court's watchful eye, respondent continued to physically abuse her children. She only recently moved from her mother's residence and still had not established a safe home for her children. Moreover, respondent had provided no financial assistance to her in-laws, despite their expressed difficulty in providing for the children, and had shown no promise in being able to provide for the children in the future.
II. ADEQUACY OF SERVICES
Respondent contends for the first time on appeal that the DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunifying her family. Challenges to the adequacy and reasonableness of services relate to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a statutory ground for termination. In re Rood, 483 Mich 73, 89; 763 NW2d 587 (2009). Respondent entered a plea of admission to various allegations in the termination petition, thereby conceding the existence of statutory grounds for termination. She has never claimed any irregularity with the plea process and even now does not seek to withdraw her plea. Through her unchallenged plea, respondent waived any claim of error. See In re Hudson, 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW 2d 115 (2011).
Further, the time for challenging the adequacy of reunification services " 'is when the court adopts a service plan.' " In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 247; 824 NW2d 569 (2012), quoting In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 27; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). In this case, respondent would have had no grounds for complaint when the service plan was adopted; it was only later that the DHHS's efforts to provide services faltered. Yet, respondent did not challenge the DHHS's service attempts when the delays occurred or when the DHHS changed her caseworker or at any time during the lower court proceedings.
In any event, the DHHS's provision of services does not warrant relief in this case. " 'Reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases' except those involving aggravated circumstances not present in this case." In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010), quoting MCL 712A.19a(2). However, a respondent has a corresponding responsibility to participate and benefit from the services offered by the petitioner. Frey, 297 Mich App at 248.
The record supports respondent's contention that her case lacked continuity. It was transferred between agencies and caseworkers at an alarming frequency. The record also supports that the lack of continuity, at times, negatively affected the services provided to respondent. During the proceedings, the DHHS acknowledged the problems it had caused and sought to diminish the impact on respondent by providing her with more frequent parenting time and by allowing respondent additional time to comply with and benefit from services.
Despite these accommodations, respondent did not demonstrate sufficient benefit to be reunited with her children. Respondent continued to abuse her children and failed to find housing away from her mother and sister until the eve of the termination hearing. Although respondent participated in individual counseling and parenting classes, her indecision regarding her relationship with the children's father and then her loss of parenting time due to her abusive acts prevented her and the children from engaging in family therapy. Once family therapy was initiated, respondent attended only two sessions and was "early terminated" for failure to appear. Thereafter, respondent failed to maintain contact with her caseworker for several months, making it impossible to re-refer respondent to family therapy. While the DHHS could have been more organized, respondent simply failed in her corresponding responsibility to benefit from the services she was offered. Thus, the trial court did not clearly err by finding insufficient benefit from the services provided by the DHHS, necessitating the termination of respondent's parental rights.
III. BEST INTERESTS
Respondent also contends that termination of her parental rights was not in the best interests of her children. "Once a statutory ground for termination has been proven, the trial court must find that termination is in the child's best interests before it can terminate parental rights." In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35, 40; 823 NW2d 144 (2012), citing MCL 712A.19b(5). "[W]hether termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence." In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). The lower court should weigh all the evidence available to it in determining the child's best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Relevant factors include "the child's bond to the parent, the parent's parenting ability, [and] the child's need for permanency, stability, and finality. . . ." Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App at 41-42 (citations omitted). "The trial court may also consider . . . the parent's compliance with his or her case service plan, the parent's visitation history with the child, [and] the children's well-being while in care. . . ." In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 714; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). The parent's history of mental health issues is a proper consideration. In re AH, 245 Mich App 77, 89; 627 NW2d 33 (2001). Also relevant are the advantages of the child's foster placement over placement with the parent, In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630, 634-635; 776 NW2d 415 (2009), and the length of time the child has been in care, In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich App 49, 64; 874 NW2d 205 (2015). The court must also take into consideration whether the subject children have been placed with relatives. Such placement weighs against, but does not completely prevent, termination of parental rights. Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 43.
The record supports that respondent and her children share a strong bond. Yet, that bond was not so strong as to overcome the children's need for safety, stability, and permanency. See In re Jones, 316 Mich App 110, 120; 894 NW2d 54 (2016) ("Though respondent shared a bond with the children, that bond was outweighed by the children's need for safety, permanency, and stability."). Throughout the two years of these proceedings, respondent continued to use extreme physical discipline against her children and expose them to abuse and illegal substance use in her mother's home. Although the children had been placed with relatives, those relatives expressed that they preferred adoption over a long-term guardianship, as the former afforded permanence for the children. Overall, we discern no error in the court's analysis and find no ground to reverse the termination order.
We affirm.
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
/s/ Jonathan Tukel