Description: Detroit, Michigan family law lawyer represented the Defendant in a termination of parental rights proceeding.

This case arises from the termination of respondent's parental rights to his children, KR, LR, and CR. In November 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned the trial court to remove the children from respondent's care.[1] DHHS alleged that police found the children residing with respondent in an abandoned home that lacked electricity, running water, and heat. It also alleged that the children had bathed only once in the preceding five-week period, the children lacked access to food within the home, and respondent regularly used
marijuana in the children's presence. After a preliminary hearing, the trial court authorized the petition and removed the children from respondent's care. DHHS then placed the children together in a licensed, nonrelative foster home.

In January 2021, respondent entered a no-contest plea, and the trial court adopted a case service plan for him. The case service plan required that respondent attend weekly parenting time, attend family therapy, complete individual counseling, complete a substance abuse assessment, submit to drug screens, obtain and maintain suitable housing, and obtain and maintain a legal source of income. Between January 2021 and August 2022, respondent failed to make meaningful, consistent progress in his case service plan. In September 2022, DHHS petitioned the trial court to terminate respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). A referee presided over the ensuing termination hearing.

During the termination hearing, a foster care caseworker testified about respondent's compliance with his case service plan, the children's preferences, and the children's wellbeing in foster care. Regarding respondent's compliance with his case service plan, the foster care caseworker explained that respondent was dismissed from family therapy and individual counseling for lack of participation. He failed to complete a substance abuse assessment, failed to complete the vast majority of his drug screens, and tested positive for marijuana in each of the five drug screens he completed. He attended roughly 80% of his scheduled visits with the children, during which he frequently lectured the children, used his cell phone, and smelled of marijuana. He also failed to obtain suitable housing and employment. Regarding the children's preferences and wellbeing in foster care, the foster care caseworker stated that the children each expressed that they loved respondent, they loved their foster mother, and they wished to remain in their foster home. She explained that the children's needs were met in their foster home, and their foster mother wished to adopt them.

For his part, respondent testified that he loved the children and shared a strong bond with them. He stated that he previously obtained employment at a landscaping company but chose to resign because the job interfered with his visitation with the children. He also stated that he had difficulty visiting the children on a consistent basis because he used public transit, which was sometimes unreliable. He also explained that he had consistent difficulty finding a suitable home for the children and requested additional time to do so.

Following the presentation of evidence, the referee found that DHHS established statutory bases to terminate respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j).[2] The referee also found that termination served the children's best interests under MCL 712A.19b(5). In June 2023, the trial court adopted the referee's findings and entered an order terminating respondent's parental rights.

In re Rodriguez/Rodriguez-Perez, 366841 (Mich. App. Nov 19, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: