Where a respondent’s parental rights were terminated, the trial court did not clearly err by finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the statutory grounds cited in support of termination.
“In February 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) alleged that respondent was providing inadequate supervision to AK, noting that a violent altercation occurred between respondent and AK’s father. During the altercation, respondent cut father with a knife while he held AK, and, after father set AK down, AK rolled off the bed and onto the ground.
“Respondent argues that the trial court clearly erred by finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the statutory grounds cited in support of termination. We disagree.
“The conditions that led to adjudication in this case were primarily respondent’s mental health, domestic violence, parenting skills, and substance abuse. Respondent was offered numerous services for approximately 21 months to enable him to reunite with AK, but he failed to participate in and benefit from virtually all of the services. Respondent completed a parenting support and education program, but his caseworker testified that he demonstrated no benefit from the program. Respondent missed approximately 35% of his parenting time and did not demonstrate adequate or safe parenting skills during the visits. Respondent never progressed to unsupervised parenting time as a result. Respondent missed nearly half of his drug screenings, and he tested positive for THC in every drug screen that he completed. Respondent knew that he could not use marijuana until he obtained a medical card, but he continually used marijuana throughout the case without first doing so. Respondent never completed intake paperwork for several facilities, despite constant reminders and offers of assistance from his caseworker, so he never began counseling, anger-management, domestic-violence, and substance-abuse services. Respondent admitted that he did not participate in most of his services throughout this case, that he should have done more to address his barriers to reunification, and that he was only motivated to start some services a month before the termination hearing because the judge handling his probation had threatened him with jail time if he did not do so. Respondent testified that he could complete the recommended therapy within a month if he consistently attended his appointments, but the psychologist who completed respondent’s psychological evaluation testified that it would take respondent a minimum of a year to complete such an intensive therapy program.
“Given respondent’s lack of participation and failure to demonstrate any benefit from the few services that he completed during the 21-month pendency of this case, respondent’s caseworker did not believe that respondent would participate in services and rectify his barriers if given additional time. The trial court therefore did not clearly err by concluding that there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent would rectify the conditions that led to adjudication within a reasonable time.”
Concurring opinion
MURRAY, J. (concurring). “I concur with the majority opinion, except for footnote 1 [‘Respondent-mother indicated at the start of the proceedings that he prefers male pronouns, which we will use herein.’]. As I read MCR 1.109(1)(b), in order for a court to utilize a salutation or pronoun different than what would be expected from the names on the caption, a party must designate the pronoun preference in the caption itself. Here, respondent mother has not done so, and in the brief on appeal respondent mother’s counsel refers to his client with the female pronoun. Though there is one mention by a witness in the trial court record that respondent mother identifies with a different gender, no formal requestas now allowed by court rulewas ever made in this Court. And, because the Supreme Court adopted this method of designation, and did so after input (positive and negative) from countless lawyers, judges, and the public, that rule should be followed before we utilize a pronoun or salutation that differs from what would be expected from the names listed in the caption.”
In re A. Kristofferson; MiLW 08-108017, 5 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Jansen, J., O’Brien, J.; Murray, J., concurring; on appeal from Ingham Circuit Court; Adil Haradhvala for appellant; Michael D. Staake for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Click here to read the full text of the concurrence
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0