In re Ernsberger, Minors

• Opinion published July 18, 2024 (Cameron, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Yates, JJ.) 

• Docket No. 369225 

• Branch Circuit Court Family Division 

Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence. However, because the child support order was entered less than two years prior to the termination and the plain language of MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) requires a period of two years of failing to substantially comply with a child support order, the Trial Court erred in terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights.

Facts: Respondent’s two children, AE and EE were placed under guardianships in April of 2021, AE with his maternal great-grandmother and EE with his paternal grandmother. Respondent had no contact with EE and only one phone call with AE after the guardianships were entered. The guardians testified that they oftentimes did not allow the children to have contact with Respondent, but that it was since she often called at inappropriate times, such as 3:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m., and was often impaired by drugs or alcohol when she called. AE’s guardian stated that if Respondent attempted to visit while she was not under the influence, the guardian would have permitted the visit. Further, Respondent did not provide cards, Christmas gifts, birthday presents, or any kind of financial support after the guardianships were entered. Respondent also did not pay under the support orders. However, Respondent claims that she has attempted to send gifts and contact the children. 

On July 19, 2023, both children’s guardians filed petitions seeking termination of Respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f). Following a termination hearing, the Trial Court found that termination was in the best interests of the children and terminated Respondent’s parental rights.

Key Appellate Rulings

The plain language of MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) requires the child support order to have been effective for at least two years prior to the filing of a termination petition under that ground. 

At the termination hearing, Petitioner’s lawyer argued that the statute is not an “either/or” on the question of financial abandonment and that the child support order does not have to be in place for two years per the statute. However, the Court stated that his interpretation ignored that the statute contains the word “or” and explicitly states that termination is proper if the parent fails to substantially comply with that order “for a period of 2 years or more before the filing of the petition.” 

The Trial Court erred when it adopted this argument, as it found that the support order had been in place for 22 or 23 months and that Respondent made no payments during that time. The Trial Court then stated that Respondent had not made any payments for the duration of the guardianship, which was three years. The Trial Court drew from this that financial abandonment took place for three years, which would fulfil the two-year requirement in the statute. 

The Court of Appeals explains that the petition was filed July 19, 2023, so the relevant time frame is from July 19, 2021, to July 19, 2023. The support order for EA was entered on June 27, 2022, with an effective date of January 12, 2022, leaving only 18 months from the time when the support order was entered to when the petition was filed. For AA, the support order was entered on January 12, 2022, with an effective date of October 1, 2021, leaving only 21 months between when the support order was entered to when the petition was filed. 

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding that the record does not support a finding that respondent failed to substantially comply with the support order for the statutorily required two-year minimum period.