## Facts

- The Saginaw Valley Department of Social Services filed petitions seeking probate-court jurisdiction over David Allan Riffe and Charles Leon Riffe, Jr., alleging neglect under MCL 712A.2(b).
- The children’s mother, Shirley Riffe, previously had an older daughter removed from her care for neglect and the child was not returned.
- One-year-old David was removed after being diagnosed as a “failure to thrive” child, with testimony attributing the condition to physical and emotional neglect.
- After David’s diagnosis, the parents missed a scheduled medical appointment for him and did not reschedule, despite the risk to his health.
- Evidence showed David’s height and weight were substantially below normal for his age while in his parents’ care, but increased markedly during out-of-home placement.
- David’s brother, Charles Jr., was also removed after police responded to the home due to a fight and found him bruised and dirty.
- A child-care worker testified that when Charles Jr. first arrived at the center at about 14 months old, his bottle nipple was blackened with green slime and had hair wrapped around it; the worker replaced it.
- About a month later, Charles Jr. arrived at the center with a severe urine burn, suggesting he had not been changed for an extended period.
- Shirley testified that she primarily cared for David and Charles primarily cared for Charles Jr., explaining she was not able to manage both children.
- At the dispositional hearing, a caseworker testified the parents made little effort to improve parenting or to have the children returned, had poor parenting skills and mental functioning, and refused psychological evaluations.
- Charles testified that David was not consistently provided three meals per day, the children should be adopted, and he intended to end his parental rights.
- The probate court terminated both parents’ rights under MCL 712A.19a(e). Shirley appealed, challenging whether termination was shown by clear and convincing evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence established statutory grounds to terminate Shirley Riffe’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19a(e) based on neglect and failure to correct conditions within a reasonable time.
2. Whether the probate court abused its discretion in ordering termination, including whether termination was consistent with the children’s best interests rather than continued wardship or other alternatives.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order terminating Shirley Riffe’s parental rights.
- The court held that the record supported termination by clear and convincing evidence under MCL 712A.19a(e).
- The court found no abuse of discretion in concluding that termination, rather than continued temporary jurisdiction, served the children’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- Termination under MCL 712A.19a(e) requires clear and convincing evidence that the child came within the court’s jurisdiction because of neglect (or similar conditions) and that the parent failed to substantially correct those conditions after time and opportunity to do so.
- Severe neglect of a young child’s medical, nutritional, and hygiene needs—including failure-to-thrive linked to neglect and untreated injury or unsanitary care—can support termination, particularly when the child improves significantly after removal.
- A parent’s prior history of neglect involving another child may be considered in evaluating current risk and the likelihood that conditions will be corrected within a reasonable time.
- A parent’s limited effort to improve, refusal to participate in evaluations or services, and inability to provide minimally adequate care may support a finding that the conditions are unlikely to be remedied within a reasonable time.
- On appellate review, the probate court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and the decision to terminate is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed termination because the evidence showed serious, ongoing neglect affecting both children’s health and basic care—illustrated by David’s failure-to-thrive diagnosis and improvement after removal, Charles Jr.’s unhygienic condition and injury, the mother’s prior neglect history, and the parents’ minimal effort to address parenting deficiencies—supporting the probate court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the neglectful conditions would not be substantially corrected within a reasonable time and that termination served the children’s welfare.


In re Riffe, 382 N.W.2d 842 (1985)