Trial Court Must Clarify Why Domestic Violence Victim’s Parental Rights Were Terminated

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order terminating the parental rights of a mother who was the victim of domestic violence, ruling that the trial court must clarify the evidence on which the termination decision was based.

The respondent-mother in In re Lozano, Minors (Docket Nos. 359018 and 359019) was the victim of domestic violence. The St. Clair County Circuit Court terminated her parental rights. She argued on appeal that the trial court erroneously found statutory grounds for termination.

The Court of Appeals vacated the termination order and remanded the case for the trial court to clarify how its findings and conclusions are consistent with the decision in In re Jackisch, Minors, ____ Mich App ____ (2022). In Jackisch, the Court of Appeals held that, although the trial court properly terminated a mother’s parental rights because at least one of the statutory termination factors was met, the trial court made “inappropriate references” to domestic violence incidents in the home.

Here, to the extent that the trial court can no longer consider certain evidence related to the respondent-mother’s involvement in domestic violence as a victim of domestic violence, “it should clarify the evidence on which it relies in support of its finding of statutory grounds,” the Court of Appeals said.

Judges Kathleen Jansen, Colleen A. O’Brien and Noah P. Hood were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion.

Background

The respondent-father and the respondent-mother have two children together, HL and LL. The respondent-mother also has another child, EC, with a different father who was not a party to the appeal.

The petitioner, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), conducted a visit at the respondents’ home and found it “in disarray” and “cluttered,” as well as observing various “safety hazards.” The respondent mother subsequently tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and amphetamines.

MDHHS filed a petition seeking removal of the children, alleging the respondents admitted to smoking marijuana in front of the children. The petition also cited a domestic violence incident where the respondent-father struck the respondent-mother in the head three times, as well as an unannounced home visit that revealed marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia within reach of the children. The petition further alleged the respondent-mother had hit EC in the head with an electric cord.

The St. Clair County Circuit Court took jurisdiction over the minor children. Ultimately, the trial court terminated the parental rights of both respondents under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). Those sections of the statute provide:

“(3) The court may terminate a parent’s parental rights to a child if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, 1 or more of the following:

…

(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either of the following:

(i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

…

(g) The parent, although, in the court’s discretion, financially able to do so, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

…

(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent. …”

The respondents appealed, arguing the trial court erroneously terminated their parental rights.

Clarification Needed

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the respondent-father’s parental rights. However, as to the respondent-mother, “[w]e vacate the trial court order and remand for the court to clarify how its order does not violate the holding in In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch …,” the Court of Appeals said.

“In Jackisch, this Court emphasized that the key question, when domestic violence is the rationale for termination, is which party is the abuser,” the Court of Appeals wrote. “This Court reiterated that ‘[t]he fact that respondent was or is a victim of domestic violence may not be relied upon as a basis for terminating parental rights.’”

The Court of Appeals noted that the respondent-father was ordered not to have contact with the respondent-mother as a condition in his criminal case arising from an April 2021 domestic violence incident. “Respondent mother had no reciprocal requirement until mid-July 2021 …. The April 2021 incident occurred nearly a year after the initial domestic-violence incident that led to adjudication, which involved respondent father striking respondent mother in the head three times. It was also after both respondents successfully participated in services. … There was no evidence that respondent mother violated the no-contact court order after it was entered in mid-July 2021, or that she physically abused the children. Instead, the trial court appears to have speculated that respondent mother would remain in an abusive relationship with respondent father despite the no-contact order.”

The trial court “must clarify the evidence on which it relies to find that respondent mother’s conduct, as opposed to respondent father’s, harmed the children,” the Court of Appeals said. “Although respondent father’s aggressive and threatening behavior was the primary reason MDHHS sought termination, there were other issues leading to termination including the conditions of respondent mother’s home, her marijuana use, and her parenting-time behavior. On remand, the court must consider how these remaining issues affect its analysis and conclusions related to respondent mother.”

The Court of Appeals observed that, although the respondent-mother’s compliance with her treatment plan “was not perfect,” she “demonstrated overall improvement” throughout her plan. “The trial court should clarify what evidence supports its conclusion that that respondent mother had no reasonable expectation to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time, despite the court’s finding that she was ‘financially able to do so[.]’ … MDHHS acknowledged that respondent mother had demonstrated proper care and custody until the April 2021 incident. The trial court, therefore, should also clarify what evidence supports its conclusion that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent mother.”

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court order terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights and remanded for clarification on how its findings and conclusions are consistent with In re Jackisch/Stamm-Jackisch.

“To the extent that the court no longer considers certain evidence related to respondent mother’s involvement in domestic violence as a victim of domestic violence, it should clarify the evidence on which it relies in support of its finding of statutory grounds,” the Court of Appeals held.