The Trial Court Properly Declined to Authorize DHHS’s Petition to Terminate Parental Rights
In re AC Leach, Minor & In re JK Spaller-Leach, Minor
Opinion Published: May 18, 2023 (Garrett, P.J., K.F. Kelly and Hood, JJ.)
Docket Nos. 362618 & 362621
Macomb County Circuit Court, Family Division
Holding: The trial court properly declined to authorize DHHS’s petition to terminate parental rights because the petition lacked any factual allegations to establish probable cause that the father posed a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying DHHS’s petition to terminate father’s parental rights.
Facts: In December 2021, respondent-father physically abused his son, then two-month-old JSL, by violently shaking him several times, causing a bilateral brain bleed, multiple rib fractures, and retinal hemorrhaging. Father was subsequently arrested and charged with one count of first-degree child abuse and has been incarcerated since January 2022 with bond set at $200,000. Following his arrest, JSL and his sister, AL, lived with their mother.
In February 2022, DHHS filed a petition to terminate father’s parental rights. However, a referee declined to authorize the petition because the children were in a safe and stable environment living with their mother and father was in jail with high bond. The trial court affirmed the referee’s recommendation.
In May 2022, DHHS filed a second petition under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) to terminate father’s parental rights. The referee again denied the second petition because the underlying conditions had not changed since the trial court denied the February 2022 petition. The trial court found that father’s continued incarceration with no foreseeable release was an insurmountable barrier that eliminated any risk of potential harm to the children. The trial court further found that the children were living in a safe and stable environment with their mother. Therefore, the trial court again dismissed DHHS’s petition, and DHHS appealed.
Key Appellate Rulings:
DHHS’s petition failed to allege that father poses a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental well-being under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) because DHHS’s allegations only related to the children’s physical well-being.
MCL 712A.2(b)(1) authorizes courts to take jurisdiction over proceedings involving a minor “who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or her mental well-being.” In this case, DHHS argued that father poses a substantial risk of harm to the children because he has access to the children’s home when he is not incarcerated. DHHS primarily relied on In re Ramsey, 229 Mich App 310; 581 NW2d 291 (1998), which held that the trial court erred in dismissing a petition to terminate parental rights of an incarcerated father under MCL 712A.2(b)(1). The court in In re Ramsey recognized that the fact of incarceration, despite a child’s safe placement with another parent, does not eliminate the possibility of mental or emotional harm to the child.
However, the Court of Appeals distinguished this case from In re Ramsey because, unlike in Ramsey, DHHS failed to establish probable cause that the children faced a substantial risk of harm to their mental well-being despite father’s incarceration. DHHS’s petition merely alleged that father admitted to shaking JSL several times, discussed JSL’s injuries, and referenced medical opinions that JSL’s injuries were caused by abuse; DHHS did not allege facts relating to JSL’s mental well-being in the petition or at the preliminary hearing. Additionally, DHHS provided no factual allegations regarding AL’s well-being. Because DHHS did not allege facts relating to the children’s existing mental or emotional harm, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order declining to authorize DHHS’s petition.
