IN RE J L NORDBERG MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2010
In the Matter of J.L. NORDBERG, Minor.
No. 295233
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-000121-NA
Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and BORRELLO and STEPHENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent father appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We reverse. This appeal has been
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In October 2007, the mother of the minor child at issue contacted the Department of
Human Services (DHS) and asked that her children1 be removed because she could not deal with
them. At the time of the removal, respondent father was incarcerated at a Marquette prison for
convictions involving resisting a police officer, fleeing a police officer, and operating a vehicle
while impaired. Respondent father also had previously been incarcerated for five other offenses.
DHS established a parent-agency agreement with the goal of reunification of the children with
their mother. A DHS foster care specialist testified that she mailed copies of the agreement and
any court orders to respondent father in prison. Additionally, there was testimony that
respondent father attended some of the court hearings by telephone. Respondent father was told
to provide any certificates and awards obtained during his imprisonment to the foster care
specialist. However, the DHS workers testified that they were unable to provide services to
incarcerated individuals.
Every three months, the DHS worker sent an updated plan to respondent father, and he
would sign and return it. Additionally, the mother of respondent father would keep DHS
apprised of any prison transfers. Respondent father expressed an interest in being reunited with
the minor child upon his release from prison. Apparently, during his imprisonment, he
completed substance abuse counseling and a life skills class.
1
There were two minor children involved in the petition to terminate with regard to the birth
mother. The children’s mother has not appealed the order terminating her parental rights, and
therefore, only the minor child of respondent father is the subject of this appeal.
-1-
The children were returned to their mother’s care on October 23, 2008, and the case was
closed on January 8, 2009. However, within two days, new complaints were alleged, and the
minor children were removed from the home again. Despite DHS involvement, a petition to
terminate parental rights was filed because the mother failed to benefit from the services.
Respondent father was paroled on September 30, 2009. He immediately contacted DHS
upon his release from prison and expressed his intent to provide for the minor child at issue.
During his imprisonment, he did not communicate with the minor child, explaining that he was
unaware that he could do so. Upon his release, respondent father was referred to substance abuse
and life skills programs, but funding for parenting classes was currently unavailable.
Respondent father acknowledged his mistakes, but expressed his intention to provide for the
minor child. In light of the criminal history that resulted in an absence of four years from the
minor child’s life, the trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate
his parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and that termination was in the best interests
of the child. Respondent father appeals as of right.
A trial court’s finding that a statutory ground for termination has been established by
clear and convincing evidence and the best interests determination are reviewed for clear error.
MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). A state is
not relieved of the duty to engage an absent parent on the basis of incarceration. In re Mason,
___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2010), slip op p 8. Additionally, the DHS may not focus
services on one parent to the exclusion of the other. Id. Rather, the agency must engage in
reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family in all cases except where aggravated
circumstances are presented. Id. When a respondent is not afforded a meaningful and adequate
opportunity to participate because of DHS’s failure to adhere to court rules and statutory
requirements, termination of parental rights is premature. Id.
In the present case, termination of respondent’s parental rights was premature. DHS
efforts focused solely on the mother of the minor child at issue. Upon his release from prison,
there was no evidence regarding when and if respondent could provide proper care and custody.
Moreover, there was no evidence regarding a possible relative placement in the interim. Mason,
slip op pp 16-22. Therefore, on the basis of Mason, the termination of respondent’s parental
rights was premature.
Reversed.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
