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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED In re CONTRERAS/CONTERAS/CONTREAS, December 15, 2022 Minors. No. 361231 Van Buren Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 18-019017-NA Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and MARKEY and RICK, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children JC, SC, and VC, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) (conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist after 182 or more days since the issuance of an initial dispositional order, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time) and (j) (reasonable likelihood based on parent’s conduct that child will be harmed if returned to home of the parent).1 We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In June 8, 2018, Children’s Protective Services (CPS) specialist Cassandra Staffen filed a petition for temporary wardship on behalf of petitioner, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), requesting that the trial court take jurisdiction over VC, SC, JC, and NW2 under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). It was alleged that respondent’s children had been observed in unsafe places without supervision and there were concerns regarding respondent’s cognitive ability to parent her children. The petition also alleged that respondent’s home was unsuitable, as it had multiple large holes in the floor and there were concerns that the home would be without gas due 1 The court also terminated the parental rights of the father to JC, SC, and VC (hereinafter, “the father”). However, the father is not a party to this appeal. 2 While NW was also respondent’s child, the trial court’s jurisdiction over NW was later dismissed, and this appeal does not involve NW. -1- to financial issues. Following a preliminary hearing, the court authorized the temporary custody petition. JC, SC, and VC were placed with the DHHS for care and supervision. At the adjudication hearing, respondent admitted to multiple allegations in the temporary custody petition, and the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that there were statutory grounds to exercise jurisdiction over the children under MCL 712A.2(b). At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the court found that the DHHS was making reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal of the children from respondent’s home, including foster-care services, family team meetings, parenting time, referrals to parenting education classes, transportation assistance, New-Outlook services, and family reunification funding. The court also found that custody of the children with respondent presented a substantial risk of harm to the children’s lives, physical health, or mental well-being, and the conditions of custody at the children’s foster-care placement were adequate to safeguard their health and welfare. A supplemental petition was filed on April 29, 2019.3 The petition alleged that a referral was made to CPS in February 2019, alleging that the father slept in SC’s bed with her and touched her vaginal area. The petition further alleged there were …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals