IN RE: ZIMMERMAN MINORS, (Published #253112), November 4, 2004
Juvenile Review MenuThe mother of these minors appealed both the adjudication and termination orders entered regarding her two children. She first asserted that the Kent County Circuit Court failed in transferring the termination proceedings involving, her son, Kaleb Zimmerman to Isabella County. Second, she claimed that there was insufficient evidence to assert jurisdiction over her children under MCL 712A.2(b). Finally, mom contented that there was insufficient evidence to support a termination of her parental rights. All three claims of appeal were denied by the Court of Appeals.
The neglect case involving Emmalee Schaffer’s two children originated in Kent County. Thereafter, when Ms. Schaffer’s son, Kaleb, was born a petition was filed to secure jurisdiction over him in Kent County as well. That petition was based on the mother’s lack of progress toward meeting reunification goals.
Through a Kinship Program in Kent County, Kaleb was placed in a guardianship with the paternal grandmother in Isabella County. The parents agreed to satisfy certain goals set forth in a family plan. Thereafter, the Kent County FIA requested withdrawal of the previously authorized neglect petition. Ultimately, that petition involving Kaleb was dismissed in January, 2003.
In August, 2003, the guardians for Kaleb and the guardians for the mother’s other 2 children filed supplemental petitions in Kent County Circuit Court seeking termination of the parents’ rights to these children.
The mother requested that Kaleb’s petition be transferred to Isabella County. She maintained that although the termination petition makes reference to historic events in Kent County that led to the earlier authorization of the protective proceeding that petition was later withdrawn and dismissed. Accordingly, mom argued, there were no current allegations connected to Kent County and the transfer motion should have been granted.
MCL 712A.2 allows the Court to assert jurisdiction over a minor “found in the county in which the offense against the child occurred . . . or in which the minor is physically present”. MCR 3.926(B)(3) provides: “if the child has been placed in a county by court order or by placement by a public or private agency, the child shall not be considered a resident of the county in which he or she has been placed, unless the child has been placed for the purpose of adoption.” Under those provisions, the Court of Appeals opined, Kent County appropriately retained jurisdiction of Kaleb’s guardians’ supplemental petition seeking termination of the parents’ rights. Kaleb’s siblings still resided in Kent County and the harm to those children which served as the original basis for the neglect petition filed regarding Kaleb shortly after his birth, implicated “offenses against the child” in Kent County. Further, the Kent and Isabella County Courts were serving judicial economy by having all three cases (Kaleb’s and his siblings) heard where the witnesses and evidence was located.
The dismissal of the earlier neglect petition involving Kaleb followed the entry of the guardianship and establishment of the family plan for reunification with his parents. The mother neither substantially complied with or completed the plan’s goals which she was still obligated to perform. Further, given the injuries to his sibling, there was a preponderance of the evidence to support the finding that Kaleb came within the Court’s jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2 on the basis of “anticipatory neglect”.
Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded that termination of the mother’s rights was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) because of her failure to comply with the family plan established for the respondent as part of the Kinship Program. While mom completed one or two of the goals of the plan, the vast majority were not accomplished. Her housing was not stable and she did not regularly visit with her children. The trial court was correct in deciding that she would not accomplish the plan’s goals within a reasonable period of time.
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated: 12-23-04
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov