In Re Smith Minors
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 6, 2025
Case Summary
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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 06, 2025 10:08 AM In re SMITH, Minors. No. 368911 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2019-000030-NA Before: GADOLA, C.J., and RICK and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services, appeals by leave granted the trial court’s orders declining to terminate respondents’ parental rights to their minor children, JJS, DRS, RLS, and JGS. We vacate the orders and remand to the trial court for redetermination of the children’s best interests. I. FACTS Respondents have six children, none of whom are in their care.1 As early as 2016, respondents were investigated by Child Protective Services regarding allegations of physical abuse and neglect of the children. From 2019 through 2022, respondent-mother gave birth to the four younger children, JJS, DRS, RLS, and JGS. Three of the four children tested positive at birth for either marijuana, cocaine, or both. Each of the four younger children were removed from respondents’ care shortly after birth in light of respondents’ substance abuse, homelessness, and respondent-mother’s untreated mental health disorder. Two of the children were placed with a cousin, BJ, who was interested in adopting the children. The other two children were placed with a paternal great aunt, GA. 1 The two oldest children live in a guardianship with their paternal great aunt, GA, and respondents’ parental rights with regard to the two oldest children are not at issue in this appeal. -1- In 2021, in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted his minor niece, respondent- father pleaded no contest to two counts of first-degree attempted criminal sexual conduct of a person under age 13, second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and as a habitual offender, second offense. He was sentenced to five years of probation and 341 days in jail. He also was required to register as a sex offender and was prohibited from being within 500 feet of parks, pools, playgrounds, childcare centers, schools, or any other place primarily used by minors. In September 2022, petitioner sought custody of the four children under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), on the basis that respondents had failed to provide proper care and custody of the children due to neglect or abandonment, and (2) that respondents’ home environment was unfit due to neglect. Respondents did not contest that the children came within the jurisdiction of the trial court, and the trial court assumed jurisdiction of the children. Petitioner offered respondents services as part of a court-ordered treatment plan that included random drug screens, substance abuse treatment, counseling, parenting classes, mental health evaluations and treatment, and parenting time with the children. Respondents failed to comply with their service plans, however. From January 2019 through 2022, respondents missed virtually all required drug screenings, failed to obtain suitable housing, failed to participate successfully in substance abuse treatment and counseling, and rarely visited the children. In 2022, petitioner sought termination of respondents’ parental rights to the four children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), (j), and (m)(i) and (ii), with regard to JJS; (3)(a), (g), (j), and (k)(i) with regard to DRS and RLS; and (3)(g) and (j) with regard to JGS. Respondents pleaded no contest to the allegations that statutory grounds for termination existed regarding the four children, and the trial court accepted respondents’ plea of no contest. The trial court then held a hearing regarding the best interests of the children. At the time of the hearing, the two children placed with BJ were ages one and three, and had been placed with BJ since birth. The foster care caseworker testified that BJ was concerned that guardianship would mean ongoing contact with respondents, which BJ did not want. GA testified that she would prefer a guardianship of the two children placed with her; at that time, the children were ages three and five, while GA was 70 years old. The foster care caseworker testified that termination was in the
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
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 06, 2025
10:08 AM
In re SMITH, Minors.
No. 368911
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2019-000030-NA
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and RICK and MARIANI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services, appeals by leave granted the
trial court’s orders declining to terminate respondents’ parental rights to their minor children, JJS, DRS, RLS, and JGS. We vacate the orders and remand to the trial court for redetermination of the children’s best interests.
I. FACTS
Respondents have six children, none of whom are in their care.1 As early as 2016,
respondents were investigated by Child Protective Services regarding allegations of physical abuse and neglect of the children. From 2019 through 2022, respondent-mother gave birth to the four younger children, JJS, DRS, RLS, and JGS. Three of the four children tested positive at birth for either marijuana, cocaine, or both. Each of the four younger children were removed from respondents’ care shortly after birth in light of respondents’ substance abuse, homelessness, and respondent-mother’s untreated mental health disorder. Two of the children were placed with a cousin, BJ, who was interested in adopting the children. The other two children were placed with a paternal great aunt, GA.
1 The two oldest children live in a guardianship with their paternal great aunt, GA, and respondents’ parental rights with regard to the two oldest children are not at issue in this appeal.
-1-
In 2021, in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted his minor niece, respondent- father pleaded no contest to two counts of first-degree attempted criminal sexual conduct of a person under age 13, second-degree criminal sexual conduct, and as a habitual offender, second offense. He was sentenced to five years of probation and 341 days in jail. He also was required to register as a sex offender and was prohibited from being within 500 feet of parks, pools, playgrounds, childcare centers, schools, or any other place primarily used by minors.
In September 2022, petitioner sought custody of the four children under MCL
712A.2(b)(1), on the basis that respondents had failed to provide proper care and custody of the children due to neglect or abandonment, and (2) that respondents’ home environment was unfit due to neglect. Respondents did not contest that the children came within the jurisdiction of the trial court, and the trial court assumed jurisdiction of the children.
Petitioner offered respondents services as part of a court-ordered treatment plan that
included random drug screens, substance abuse treatment, counseling, parenting classes, mental health evaluations and treatment, and parenting time with the children. Respondents failed to comply with their service plans, however. From January 2019 through 2022, respondents missed virtually all required drug screenings, failed to obtain suitable housing, failed to participate successfully in substance abuse treatment and counseling, and rarely visited the children.
In 2022, petitioner sought termination of respondents’ parental rights to the four children
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), (j), and (m)(i) and (ii), with regard to JJS; (3)(a), (g), (j), and (k)(i) with regard to DRS and RLS; and (3)(g) and (j) with regard to JGS. Respondents pleaded no contest to the allegations that statutory grounds for termination existed regarding the four children, and the trial court accepted respondents’ plea of no contest.
The trial court then held a hearing regarding the best interests of the children. At the time
of the hearing, the two children placed with BJ were ages one and three, and had been placed with BJ since birth. The foster care caseworker testified that BJ was concerned that guardianship would mean ongoing contact with respondents, which BJ did not want. GA testified that she would prefer a guardianship of the two children placed with her; at that time, the children were ages three and five, while GA was 70 years old.
The foster care caseworker testified that termination was in the
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools