Court Opinion

ID: 9953431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 05:06:26.095022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:51:09.823851
License: Public Domain

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                                                                     UNPUBLISHED
In re GREEN, Minors.                                                 March 21, 2024

                                                                     No. 366273
                                                                     Midland Circuit Court
                                                                     Family Division
                                                                     LC No. 13-004192-NA

Before: PATEL, P.J., and RICK and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

          Respondent M. Gibbs, the father of the minor children JMG and JSG, appeals as of right
the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to the children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(c)(ii), (g), and (j). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

        Petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”), initiated this child
protection proceeding in September 2020 after receiving a complaint alleging verbal abuse, drug
abuse, and physical abuse in the family home. At that time, the children, then ages 10 and 12 years
old, were living with their mother, T. Green. Respondent, their father, had been absent for most
of their lives. Green had a history of mental health issues and had been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder and borderline personality disorder, and she would not take her medication. The petition
alleged that Green had been physically and emotionally abusive to her children. JSG reported that
Green screamed at them, told them “they are the worse,” and accused them of being “just like your
dad.” JMG reported that Green yells at them all the time, calls them pigs, and tells them that they
are lazy like their father. After the children were removed from Green’s care and placed in the
care of their maternal grandmother, DHHS reached out to respondent and provided him with
services to assist him in reestablishing a relationship and healthy bond with his children.1

1
 Green was also named as a respondent, but she was noncompliant with services and the trial court
also terminated her parental rights to the children at the same time it terminated respondent’s
parental rights. Green has not appealed that decision and is not a party to this appeal.

                                                -1-
        Respondent was compliant with services, which included a psychological evaluation,
individual therapy, family therapy, parenting classes, and participation in parenting time, which
eventually progressed to unsupervised parenting time. Over the course of two years that this case
continued, however, DHHS determined that he did not benefit from the services after receiving
reports that continued contact between respondent and his daughters was having a negative effect
on the children and causing them significant emotional harm. Both girls had experienced years of
physical and emotional abuse while living with Green and had been diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”). Respondent, who was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder
(“NPD”), was resistant to recognizing and understanding the impact his absence from his
children’s lives had on them while they were growing up, understanding the trauma they had
experienced while living with Green, or empathizing with their feelings of abandonment and their
mental health needs. According to the children’s care providers, continued contact with
respondent was causing them additional trauma. Then emotional stability declined dramatically
after an incident in June 2022 when JMG became out of control and respondent attempted to
physically restrain her by kneeling on her chest cavity to the extent that it interfered with her
breathing and required her hospitalization for four days. Accordingly, DHHS filed a supplemental
petition requesting termination of respondent’s parental rights after many services, counseling, and
other parenting interventions because respondent was not benefiting from services and just wanted
his children to “get over” their trauma.

         Following seven days of terminations, the trial court found that clear and convincing
evidence supported termination of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(c)(ii), (g), and (j), and further found that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. Respondent now appeals as of right.

                                  II. STATUTORY GROUNDS

       Respondent first argues that the trial court erred by finding that clear and convincing
evidence supported a statutory ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3). We disagree.

       This Court reviews for clear error a trial court’s finding whether clear and convincing
evidence supported a statutory ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3). In re Smith, 324
Mich App 28, 46; 919 NW2d 427 (2018). A finding is clearly erroneous when this Court is left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Williams, 333 Mich App
172, 178; 958 NW2d 629 (2020).

       The trial court found that termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j), which permit termination of parental rights under the
following circumstances:

              (c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter,
       182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order,
       and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either of the following:

              (i) The 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.

                                                -2-
               (ii) Other conditions exist that cause the child to come within the court’s
       jurisdiction, the parent has received recommendations to rectify those conditions,
       the conditions have not been rectified by the parent after the parent has received
       notice and a hearing and has been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the
       conditions, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified
       within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

                                               * * *

               (g) The parent, although, in the court’s discretion, financially able to do so,
       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.

                                               * * *

               (j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the
       child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of
       the parent.

It is only necessary that one statutory ground for termination be established by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30, 31; 817 NW2d 111 (2011).

        We agree that clear and convincing evidence supports termination of respondent’s parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). The principal condition that led to the adjudication with
respect to respondent was that the children had been severely traumatized from years of emotional
and physical abuse by Green, and respondent had been absent for most of his children’s lives and
had no relationship with his daughters. Both girls had been diagnosed with PTSD. While
respondent participated in services offered by DHHS and was initially compliant with his case
service plan, JMG’s counselor reported as early as August 2021 that the trust between JMG and
respondent remained strained and would need to be regained for JMG to feel comfortable with
respondent again. Also, in the early stages of attempting to reestablish a relationship with his
daughters, respondent displayed an attitude that both children needed to “get over” their childhood
trauma, and he demonstrated a lack of insight or understanding on how to deal with children who
had undergone trauma, their need for ongoing counseling or their need for medication.

       The caseworkers, Erin Herrington and Dashay Withey, agreed that respondent was initially
compliant with all services and parenting-time visits with the children appeared to be going well.
Herrington also agreed that there were sufficient intervention services in place to consider
reunifying the girls with respondent. As the case progressed, however, it became apparent that
respondent’s efforts to reestablish a relationship with his children were not succeeding; rather, they
were creating continued trauma for both girls. At a hearing in May 2022, it was noted that
respondent was not providing JMG with her prescription medication because he disagreed that it
was necessary, and he had to be ordered by the court to provide the medication. By September
2022, Barry Ebig, a counselor who treated both girls and also conducted family therapy with
respondent, testified that continued parenting time between respondent and his daughters was not

                                                 -3-
in the children’s best interests because their time spent with respondent was “mentally and
emotionally harmful to” them.

        Ebig testified that respondent had been diagnosed with NPD and, during the honeymoon
phase when respondent was getting to know his children, the traits of NPD were “dormant.”
Specifically, the girls were not testing respondent’s authority or challenging the narcissistic image
that respondent held of himself. When JMG shared her feelings with respondent and asked him
why he was not there when she was growing up, he responded in a hostile tone, telling JMG that
he too had been abandoned, and that she should “[j]ust learn to get over it.” Ebig felt that
reunification with respondent would be detrimental to the girls, particularly considering the trauma
they had previously experienced while living with Green and their PTSD diagnosis.2 Because
respondent did not take responsibility for his prior actions or demonstrate any insight into how his
prior abandonment had impacted his children, or demonstrate an understanding of the trauma they
had experienced, reunification services were not in the girls’ best interests. Ebig described the
emotional harm to the girls as a “slow degradation,” in which the girls continued to feel minimized,
marginalized, and felt that they could never say what they wanted to say because their feelings,
their thoughts, and their statements seemed immaterial to respondent.

         Ebig explained that for respondent to successfully parent his children, he would need to
learn skills to deal with children who had been traumatized and abandoned. When Ebig attempted
to speak to respondent about the children’s feelings that they were trying to express, or provide
feedback on his parenting skills, respondent would “ignore it.” Ebig stated that “[a]ny feedback
that I gave at any other time, [he] wouldn’t make contact with me and didn’t acknowledge anything
that I would say under those guidelines.”

        Herrington further explained that any plans for reunification changed following the June
2022 incident that led to JMG’s hospitalization following her physical altercation with respondent.
Both Ebig and a psychiatrist who treated both girls recommended that it was no longer in the girls’
best interests to pursue reunification, to continue any types of visits with respondent, or to continue
family therapy. The case had been languishing for approximately two years and, despite
respondent’s initial progress, he did not sufficiently benefit from the services provided, and the
continued contacts with respondent were emotionally harmful to the children

       Morgan Sauve, a therapist for Community Mental Health who provided therapy for both
children, also testified that both girls stated that they “don’t have a relationship with [respondent]
and they don’t really see one moving forward.” Since September 2022, JMG had been
demonstrating behavioral issues, including defiance, substance abuse, stealing, not paying

2
  JMG was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and cannabis use disorder (both severe),
generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, ADHD, conduct disorder, and unspecified personality
disorder. JSG was diagnosed with PTSD, ADHD, severe anger issues, oppositional defiance
disorder, as well as severe anxiety and depression. JMG sought substance abuse treatment at Great
Lakes Recovery Centers Inc. for marijuana, “mushroom”, and “LSD” use. She also struggles with
suicidal ideation. Both of these young girls have significant mental health issues that have
benefited from counseling, medication and, in the case of JMG, placements out of home.

                                                 -4-
attention in school, and falling asleep in school. JMG’s delinquent behaviors started not long after
the June 2022 incident with respondent. Her behavior led to her being adjudicated in the juvenile
court and placed in a juvenile center for the third time. JMG, age 15 at the time of the termination
hearing, was also smoking marijuana and was involved in an altercation with a police officer.

        On the basis of this evidence, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the conditions
that led to the adjudication continued to exist, and that it was not reasonably likely that the
conditions would be rectified within a reasonable time considering the ages of the children.
Respondent had played a minimal role in his daughters’ lives before the adjudication, and although
he participated in services and family therapy in an attempt to reestablish a relationship with his
daughters and develop a healthy bond, he continued to demonstrate a lack of insight and
understanding of the trauma they had experience and their mental health needs, as well as his own
mental health struggles, that inhibited and undermined his ability to form a healthy relationship
and bond with his children. In sum, respondent’s lack of insight, insensitivity, and lack of
understanding demonstrated that the conditions that led to the adjudication had not been rectified.
Moreover, considering respondent’s NPD diagnosis, and the evidence of the children’s
deteriorating mental health from their continued contact with respondent, the trial court did not
clearly err by finding that the conditions that led to the adjudication were not reasonably likely to
be rectified within a reasonable period of time given the significant amount of time that respondent
had to participate in and benefit from services.3 Thus, the trial court did not clearly err by finding
that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i).

        “Because one statutory ground for termination was established by clear and convincing
evidence, [this Court] need not consider whether the other grounds cited by the trial court also
supported the termination decision.” In re Foster, 285 Mich App 630, 633; 776 NW2d 415 (2009).
Nevertheless, we believe the foregoing evidence also supports termination of respondent’s parental
rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). If a parent does not benefit from a case service plan,
that is evidence that the parent will not be able to provide proper care and custody under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). In re White, 303 Mich App 701, 710; 846 NW2d 61 (2014). Although respondent
participated in services, he clearly was not able to learn the skills he needed to provide a healthy,
supportive environment for his children to grow, recover, and thrive. His inability to recognize the
significant mental anguish the children suffered at the hands of their mentally ill mother and his
absence from their young lives prevented him from supporting the children in their treatment and
recovery from PTSD. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err by finding that he would not be
able to provide proper care and custody for his daughters. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). Moreover, “[t]he
harm contemplated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) includes emotional harm as well as physical
harm.” In re Sanborn, 337 Mich App 252, 279; 976 NW2d 44 (2021). According to Herrington,
both the children’s psychiatrist and therapist reported that the children would suffer mental and
emotional harm if they remained in respondent’s care. This evidence supports the trial court’s
finding that the children were reasonably likely to be harmed if returned to respondent’s home.
MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).

3
  The adjudication occurred on December 4, 2020, and the opinion affirming the referee’s
recommendation regarding the petition to terminate respondent’s rights issued on May 3, 2023.

                                                  -5-
                                       III. BEST INTERESTS

        Respondent also argues that the trial court erred by finding that termination of his parental
rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree.

        “If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights and that
termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, the court shall order termination of the
parental rights and order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the parent not be
made.” MCL 712A.19b(5). A trial court’s decision whether termination of parental rights is in a
child’s best interests is reviewed for clear error. In re Atchley, 341 Mich App 332, 346; 990 NW2d
685 (2022).

        At the best-interests stage, the focus is on the child, not the parent. Id. When considering
whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s best interests, a court may consider a variety
of factors, including

        the child’s bond to the parent, the parent’s parenting ability, the child’s need for
        permanency, stability, and finality, and the advantages of a foster home over the
        parent’s home. Other considerations include the length of time the child was in
        care, the likelihood that the child could be returned to her parents’ home within the
        foreseeable future, if at all, and compliance with the case service plan. [Id. at 346-
        347, quoting In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 311 Mich App 49, 63-64; 874 NW2d
        205 (2015).]

         Caseworker Janet Johnson explained that DHHS was seeking termination of respondent’s
parental rights because of respondent’s lack of progress in reestablishing a healthy relationship
with his daughters. Despite participating in a multitude of services, he failed to demonstrate any
insight into how to parent his daughters, particularly in understanding and knowing how to address
their mental health needs. Johnson also explained that both children had been in “out-of-home
placement” for more than two years and they were in need of permanency and stability. Although
JMG was in juvenile detention, she was improving. JSG was “doing fantastic,” she was on the
honor roll at school, and she was participating in gymnastics. Both girls had experienced years of
trauma because of the instability and abuse they experienced with Green and their abandonment
by respondent, and the uncertainty surrounding their current situation was causing anxiety and
emotional harm. Both girls were adamant that they did not want to have contact with respondent
and told Johnson that they would run away if they were placed with him. At the time of the
termination hearing, JMG was scheduled to attend rehabilitation in the Upper Peninsula. JMG
was feeling very hopeful and positive about attending rehabilitation to get treatment for her
marijuana use and support for her mental health. Accordingly, Johnson believed that termination
of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Ebig and Herrington likewise
testified that termination of respondent’s parental was in the girls’ best interests.4

4
 Notably, the witnesses respondent called to testify regarding his progress in his parenting classes
and counseling never saw respondent interact with his daughters. Respondent also testified at trial

                                                  -6-
        Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
in the children’s best interests is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. While
respondent did initially participate in individual and family therapy, he did not benefit from these
services because he showed limited insight into his daughters’ mental health issues. The girls
experienced significant trauma not only because of his absence in their lives but also because of
their mother’s abusive behavior. Respondent minimized the trauma his daughters had experienced
and was not supportive of their feelings and needs. The relationship between respondent and his
daughters further deteriorated when JMG had an emotional episode and respondent used physical
force to restrain her, resulting in her hospitalization for four days. Both girls were afraid of both
respondent and his wife, and they were adamant about not being placed with him. Both children
were in desperate need of stability, permanency, and finality that respondent had never provided
but their grandmother could offer. The lack of stability and uncertainty significantly impacted
JMG, as manifested by her behavioral and substance abuse issues. Accordingly, the trial court did
not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interests.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Sima G. Patel
                                                              /s/ Michelle M. Rick
                                                              /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney

regarding his discipline techniques and how he “popped” JMG in the mouth when she acted out in
June 2022; he also testified that Ebig gave him permission to “whoop the girls” and use “pats on
the back of the butt, whatever,” as a form of discipline, although he denied disciplining his
daughters. Clearly, respondent’s parenting had not improved despite counseling and classes.

                                                 -7-