In re White
| Decision Date | 16 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 316749. |
| Citation | 846 N.W.2d 61,303 Mich.App. 701 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
| Parties | In re WHITE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kurt C. Asbury, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sylvia L. Linton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the Department of Human Services.
James A. Perry, for L. Rinnert.
Before: WHITBECK, P.J., and FITZGERALD and O'CONNELL, JJ.
Respondent-appellant, L. Rinnert, appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children's father, J. White, who is not a party to this appeal. Because Rinnert failed to demonstrate that she could provide a safe and stable environment for her children, we affirm.
Children's Protective Services received multiple referrals concerning Rinnert's care of her three daughters beginning in 2002. Rinnert's oldest daughter is autistic, and the younger daughters suffer from attention deficit and bipolar disorders. Rinnert is physically disabled.
In 2011, the Department of Human Services (the Department) petitioned the trial court for protective custody over the children. In response to the petition, Rinnert admitted that her husband at the time had kicked the oldest daughter in 2010. Rinnert admitted that she had lived in at least 20 different places in 9 years. Rinnert admitted that she makes poor relationship decisions, including being involved with J. Harris, a sex offender who had attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct against a person between the ages of 13 and 15. On these bases, the trial court took jurisdiction over the children.
Rinnert's psychological evaluation reported that Rinnert was emotionally immature and was unable to make the psychological transition to adulthood because of abuse that she had suffered at the hands of her biological and adoptive families. The evaluation noted that Rinnert was likely to “ routinely seek out relationships in which she is exploited” and “attracts individuals willing to exploit her[.]” The evaluation stated that Rinnert did not understand that associating with such individuals places her children at a risk of harm.
At a review hearing on May 7, 2012, Jessica Duvall, the children's caseworker, reported that Rinnert actively participated in services. Duvall reported that Rinnert interacted very well with the children during parenting time. Duvall also reported that the children were doing well in foster care.
At a hearing on July 30, 2012, Duvall reported that a strange man arrived with a six-pack of beer during a supervised parenting visit at Rinnert's apartment. Rinnert admitted that the man was someone she had met through Facebook. Rinnert asked the man to leave, and eventually the police were called. In a letter, Amy Anderson, Rinnert's therapist, reported that Rinnert had been given permission to hold a birthday party for the oldest daughter at a state park as long as she did not do any grilling and did not invite guests. Rinnert brought four guests and grilling equipment to the park. The trial court agreed that Rinnert had demonstrated progress, but instructed Rinnert to “stay away from men” and close her Facebook account.
At a hearing on October 19, 2012, Ned Heath, a Department employee, reported that a man, B. Johnson, was staying with Rinnert. Rinnert stated that Johnson was her cousin. Heath testified that he found Johnson shirtless in Rinnert's apartment when he arrived for a check-in and that Rinnert had a picture of Johnson lying on her bed shirtless. White testified that Rinnert's birth mother had informed him that Rinnert and Johnson met on the Internet and were dating.
The trial court informed Rinnert that if it did not see progress with Rinnert's issue of finding strange men on the Internet and allowing them to come into the house to spend the night, it would not be safe to return the children to Rinnert's care.
The children originally came into care with head lice. Heath also reported that head lice continued to be a concern because the children had lice again after visiting Rinnert. The trial court instructed Rinnert to take care of the lice issue.
At the January 6, 2013 hearing, Heath reported that Rinnert and Johnson were still seeing each other at the home of a mutual friend. Heath reported that when Rinnert did not have the children, she was staying at a friend's house where Johnson was also staying. The trial court authorized the prosecutor to petition to terminate Rinnert's parental rights.
At the termination hearing, Lisa Del Valle, Rinnert's therapist, testified that Rinnert had strongly progressed toward building self-esteem and being assertive. Ann Arnold, Rinnert's parenting educator, testified that Rinnert had done very well at setting boundaries for her children. Rebecca Mouch, Rinnert's women's support group counselor, testified that Rinnert had made “tremendous” progress at understanding boundaries.
Lindsay Craves, the oldest child's therapist, testified that she requires a high degree of special care because of her autism. Craves testified that Rinnert would have to be very careful about the people she brought near the oldest child because of her vulnerability. Craves testified that she worried about Rinnert's decisions as they related to keeping the oldest child safe.
Johnson testified that he and Rinnert met on an Internet dating website and discovered that they were distantly related through Rinnert's birth mother. Rinnert testified that her birth mother had found Johnson on the dating website and suggested that Rinnert invite him to Michigan to assist around Rinnert's home. Rinnert testified that she knew that Johnson had a criminal background when she invited him to Michigan, but she wanted to “give him a chance.”
Johnson testified that he moved to Rinnert's home from Texas and lived there for a month, but they did not have a sexual relationship. Rinnert testified that Johnson never lived with her. Johnson confirmed that he saw Rinnert on several occasions after leaving her home.
Rinnert denied that she had ever had a relationship with Harris, despite having admitted it at the preliminary hearing. Rinnert also testified that an uncle was occasionally staying at her apartment. Heath testified that he was unsure whether Rinnert had benefitted from services.
The trial court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported terminating Rinnert's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ), (g), and (j). It found that, despite Rinnert's participation in services, the conditions that led to the adjudication had not sufficiently changed. The trial court found that Rinnert continued to exhibit poor judgment, allow men that she knew very little about to stay in her home, and “meet, greet, and entertain dangerous companions.” The trial court found that Rinnert had not demonstrated that she could provide a safe and healthy environment for her children. The trial court found that Rinnert would not be able to rectify this condition within a reasonable time because after two years she continued to engage in the same behavior. The trial court found that Rinnert was unable to provide proper care and custody for the children and that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if returned to Rinnert's home.
Considering the children's best interests, the trial court found that the children were strongly bonded to Rinnert. The trial court found that the children have special needs: the oldest child has physical and mental handicaps, and the younger two children have attention deficit and bipolar disorders. The trial court found that because of these needs, the children “requirestability and full-time attention” and a safe and stable home.
The trial court found that Rinnert had continued to “surround herself with people of questionable character.” It found that the children were the most stable in foster care, where they had lived for the longest single period in their lives. The trial court noted that the foster family was willing to keep the children safe until adoption. The trial court found that the children were developing in a healthy and safe manner.
The trial court ordered Rinnert's parental rights terminated.
This Court reviews for clear error the trial court's factual findings and ultimate determinations on the statutory grounds for termination. 1 The trial court's factual findings are clearly erroneous if the evidence supports them, but we are definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mistake.2
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) provides that the trial court may terminate a parent's rights if
[t]he 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.
This statutory ground exists when the conditions that brought the children into foster care continue to exist despite “time to make changes and the opportunity to take advantage of a variety of services....” 3
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) provides that the trial court may terminate a parent's rights if
[t]he parent, without regard to intent, 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.
A parent's failure to participate in and benefit from a service plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide a child proper care and custody.4
MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) provides that the trial court may terminate parental rights if
[t]here is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child's parent, that the child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Baham
...from a service plan is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide a child proper care and custody." In re White , 303 Mich. App. 701, 710, 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014). The doctrine of anticipatory neglect provides that how a parent treats one child is probative of how that parent may tre......
-
In re Rippy
...144 (2012). "We review for clear error the trial court's determination regarding the children's best interests." In re White , 303 Mich. App. 701, 713, 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014). The trial court may consider a number of factors when determining whether termination of a respondent's parental righ......
-
In re Keillor, 340395
...error the trial court’s factual findings and ultimate determinations on the statutory grounds for termination." In re White , 303 Mich. App. 701, 709, 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014). A trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if "we are definitely and firmly convinced that it made a mista......
-
In re Pederson
...visitation history with the child, the children's well-being while in care, and the possibility of adoption. [ In re White , 303 Mich. App. 701, 713-714, 846 N.W.2d 61 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] In support of their argument that the trial court erred by concluding that ......