In Re E Palmer Minor

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 10:37 AM In re E. PALMER, Minor. Nos. 371252; 371253 Calhoun Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2023-003058-NA Before: GARRETT, P.J., and RICK and FEENEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals,1 respondent-father and respondent-mother appeal as of right the termination of their parental rights to the minor child, EP, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(iii) (battering, torture, or other severe physical abuse), MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(v) (life-threatening injury), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood of harm if returned to parent). We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Shortly before her second birthday in November 2023, EP was taken to Oaklawn Hospital, and, on arrival, she was lethargic, emaciated, and minimally responsive. EP weighed about 10 pounds, she had very low blood sugar, and her low temperature indicated that she was hypothermic. An emergency room doctor concluded that EP “had a high probability of imminent or life-threatening deterioration due to” acute encephalopathy, malnourishment, and acute hypoglycemia. EP was quickly transferred to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at Bronson Children’s Hospital, where she was described as “nearly dead.” Although Dr. Sarah Brown—who cared for EP in the PICU and also testified as an expert in child abuse pediatrics—told respondent-mother about the severity of EP’s medical condition, respondent-mother refused to answer any questions about EP’s medical history. Respondent- father also did not provide any information to assist in EP’s care, and Dr. Brown testified that, in 1 In re Palmer Minor, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 18, 2024 (Docket Nos. 371252 and 371253). -1- the PICU, an attorney told her not to question respondents about EP. Dr. Brown ultimately diagnosed EP with medical neglect, severe malnourishment, refeeding syndrome with mild transaminitis, elevated ferritin, severe deconditioning, loss of muscle mass, and loss of brain volume caused by malnutrition. Two days after her arrival to the hospital, EP suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest, and, although doctors were able to restart her heart, her condition remained “touch and go.” Because of severe damage to her kidneys, Dr. Brown had EP transported to CS Mott Children’s Hospital, where she remained until her discharge in January 2024. Doctors found that respondents’ failure to feed EP over a period of months caused her medical condition and that this affected every organ system in her body. They further concluded that respondents provided EP with little to no human interaction, and evidence showed that respondents kept EP confined inside a portable crib in a bedroom of the home. The damage caused by interactional neglect required EP to learn “how to be a human,” including learning to: look at people as they entered the room, sit and listen to a book, and communicate her needs. EP gained weight by the time she left the hospital, but she could not walk or speak, and Dr. Brown anticipated that EP would have life-long physical, psychological, and educational problems because of the injuries inflicted by respondents. Following the initial removal, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed an amended petition to terminate respondents’ parental rights to EP at the initial disposition. The DHHS alleged that respondents subjected EP to aggravated circumstances; therefore, the DHHS had no duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Following a hearing, the referee concluded that clear and convincing evidence established aggravated circumstances, and the trial court signed and entered the referee’s recommended order. At the adjudication, respondents pleaded no contest to various allegations in the amended petition, and, following the dispositional hearing, the trial court terminated their parental rights to EP as described. These appeals followed. II. RESPONDENT-FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL Respondent-father first argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because there was a complete denial of counsel at a critical st