-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re GAINES/SCHUG/MILLER, Minors. August 14, 2018

No. 341878

Calhoun Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 2013-000548-NA

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and GLEICHER and LETICA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The circuit court terminated respondent-mother’s rights to her four children because she 

and her boyfriend abused, tortured, and starved her young son. Respondent contends that the 

termination of her rights was unconstitutional. Her claim lacks any arguable merit and we 

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) took respondent’s four children 

into care on an emergency basis after her four-year-old son, MG, was hospitalized on the verge 

of death, showing signs of severe physical abuse. MG also suffered from malnutrition, 

dehydration, and hypothermia. The serious abuse led to the development of gangrene on the tips 

of MG’s toes, impairing his ability to walk, and has caused lasting cognitive and emotional 

disabilities.

Respondent’s other children also showed signs of neglect and malnutrition and were 

infested with lice. Respondent’s eldest daughter, RG, described acts of physical and sexual 

abuse against the children. RG asserted that she and MG were forced to fight each other as 

punishment and were often locked in a closet for long periods of time. During a home 

inspection, a Child Protective Services investigator found human waste inside a closet, 

supporting the child’s allegations.

Despite the severity of the children’s conditions and despite that respondent was then in 

jail awaiting trial on first-degree child abuse charges, the court ordered the DHHS to provide 

services toward reunification. Respondent participated in services that were available at the jail, 

which were not necessarily services that would rectify the conditions that led to the removal of 

her children.
-2-

Nine months later, the court finally conducted a termination hearing. Respondent blamed 

her mistreatment of her children on her boyfriend, Isaac Miller. She claimed that she beat and 

starved her children to avoid being beaten by Miller. Respondent’s mother also blamed 

respondent’s behavior on Miller, noting that respondent had successfully participated in services 

to retain custody of her eldest two children in 2013. Ultimately, the court terminated 

respondent’s rights to all of her children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b), (g), (j) and (k), 

stating, “this is one of the most severe cases of abuse that this Court has encountered in close to 

20 years working with children.” While this appeal was pending, respondent pleaded no contest 

to one count of first-degree child abuse and was sentenced to 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment.1

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent contends that the circuit court violated her constitutional right to parent her 

children by terminating her parental rights despite evidence that she could be rehabilitated and 

that the abuse was caused by Miller’s presence in the home. Respondent further asserted in her 

April 23, 2018 appellate brief that it was in the best interest of her children to remain in a 

wardship while she was incarcerated but that they should be returned to her care upon her 

release.

Parents have a fundamental constitutional right “in the companionship, care, custody, and 

management of their children.” In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 409; 852 NW2d 524 (2014) 

(quotation marks and citations omitted). The parent’s rights do “not evaporate simply because 

they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.” 

Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745, 753; 102 S Ct 1388; 71 L Ed 2d 599 (1982). However, “[a]

parent’s right to control the custody and care of her children is not absolute, as the state has a 

legitimate interest in protecting ‘the moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor’

and in some circumstances ‘neglectful parents may be separated from their children.’ ” Sanders, 

495 Mich at 409-410, quoting Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645, 652; 92 S Ct 1208; 31 L Ed 2d 551 

(1972). To protect both the rights of the parents and the children, “all parents ‘are 

constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their 

custody.’ ” Id. at 412, quoting Stanley, 405 US at 658.

Respondent pleaded no contest at the adjudication, admitting parental unfitness and 

allowing the court to take jurisdiction over her children. Thereafter, the court could terminate 

respondent’s parental rights if it found “by clear and convincing evidence” the existence of at 

least one statutory ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3). In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 

355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Here, the court found termination supported by four statutory 

grounds. Respondent does not challenge the evidentiary support for those factors. Accordingly, 

the court was required to terminate respondent’s parental rights if it determined “that termination 

of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5).

 1 See <http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=469009> (accessed July 

25, 2018).
-3-

Respondent admits that the court had grounds to take jurisdiction over her children given 

her incarceration on child abuse charges. However, she contends that termination of her parental 

rights was “hasty” and was not in her children’s best interests because “she was presumed 

innocent, and could have been acquitted of those charges.” This point is moot as respondent has 

since pleaded no contest to first-degree child abuse and will be imprisoned until her children are 

adults.

Respondent contends that she is capable of rehabilitation, negating the court’s bestinterest determination. As evidence of this, respondent emphasizes that her children were 

removed from her care in 2013 based on domestic violence in the home and that she regained 

custody after successfully completing services. The DHHS has a duty to provide services to 

reunify a parent and child absent extenuating circumstances. The parent has a commensurate 

duty to participate in and benefit from the services offered. In re Frey, 297 Mich App 242, 248; 

824 NW2d 569 (2012). Respondent did not truly benefit from the services provided in the 2013 

case. Although respondent temporarily avoided relationships marred by domestic violence, she 

entered a relationship with Miller that was far worse. Not only did respondent fall victim yet 

again to violence at the hands of her partner, she allowed that partner to physically and sexually 

abuse her children. And respondent physically abused, neglected, and tortured her own children. 

Respondent’s challenge is therefore completely without merit.

Respondent’s constitutional right to parent her children does not outweigh her children’s 

right to be free from life-threatening abuse at their mother’s hands. Respondent has not 

established that the court violated her rights by protecting her children.

We affirm.

/s/ William B. Murphy 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Anica Letica