In Re Marcusse Minors

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 3:13 PM In re MARCUSSE, Minors. No. 371407 Barry Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 22-009523-NA Before: GARRETT, P.J., and RICK and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-mother appeals as of right the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children, BM and LM, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions leading to adjudication continue to exist); MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (failure to provide proper care and custody); MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) (parent imprisoned for such a period that the child will be deprived of a normal home for more than two years); and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (child will be harmed if returned to the parent).1 We reverse and remand. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND According to the initial petition filed in this matter, the children were removed from mother’s home because they were at risk of harm from mother’s methamphetamine and other substance use, which interfered with her ability to parent appropriately and led to previous criminal convictions. The petition alleged that mother failed to provide safe housing for the children and frequently left them unsupervised. Additionally, the children had missed a significant amount of school, and at one point, mother refused to sign the necessary forms so that they could receive proper medical care. When the petition was filed, the children’s father was incarcerated.2 1 Mother has three older children, AP, CP, and RP, who were placed with their nonrespondent father and are not the subject of this appeal. Therefore, any reference to “the children” in this opinion is made to BM and LM, and reference to the older children will only be made as is relevant to BM and LM. 2 During this case, the children’s father voluntarily terminated his parental rights. -1- Mother’s older children, AP and RP, told foster-care workers that they did not feel safe at home and that RP was the primary caretaker for all the younger children. Following the children’s removal, mother was mostly unreachable by petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). As a result, she repeatedly missed parenting- time visits and failed to participate in other scheduled services. While the proceedings below were ongoing, mother was arrested after becoming a suspect in a deadly motor vehicle accident. She was housed at a local county jail while the criminal case was pending. Mother was later convicted, and in March 2023, she was sentenced to serve 5 to 10 years in prison. At a review hearing held after mother was moved to prison, the children’s lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL) testified that mother signed a case service plan in which she agreed to: “Complete any service available to her while incarcerated[;] Be open and honest with all service providers[;] Provide documentation of all services completed[;] Follow all recommendations from any service providers[;] Abide by the rules set forth in the ‘Parenting Time Guidelines’ . . . [; and] Complete a parent education course[.]” Almost two years after the initial petition in this matter was filed, DHHS filed a supplemental petition for termination of mother’s parental rights. A termination hearing was held the following month. By the time the termination hearing took place, the children had been in foster care for 25 months. Mother’s earliest release date from prison was not for another three years. The trial court found that reasonable efforts had been made to reunify mother with the children, but mother failed to show any benefit from the services offered. Accordingly, the trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate mother’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). The court likewise found that termination was in the children’s best interests. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS A. REASONABLE EFFORTS Mother first argues that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification before the supplemental petiti