Appeals court hears challenge to trial court finding father unfit in DCF custody case

At the appeals hearing in case 24p868, Jeremy Robin argued for the father appellant that the trial judge erred when she found father unfit and yet found the mother fit; Robin emphasized constitutional parental-rights precedent and said the judge gave excessive weight to credibility findings and uneven weight to services the parents completed. Robin told the panel the father engaged in multiple services (parenting classes, paternity establishment), moved to improved housing, and contends the trial record does not support the judge’s adverse credibility findings about the father.

Richard Salcedo, representing the Department of Children and Families (DCF), urged the court to affirm. Salcedo said the trial court entered 146 subsidiary findings of fact that, taken together, clearly and convincingly support the conclusion father was unfit. He summarized findings the trial court relied on: repeated incidents of verbal, emotional and physical abuse of mother by father and other family members; controlling behavior that restricted mother’s access to transportation and phone; unsanitary and condemned housing with multiple animals; father’s failure to address domestic-violence concerns through required services; and a pattern of missed or cancelled visits with the child.

Tina Aronis, attorney for the child, told the panel the trial court properly weighed credibility and found mother was engaging in services and able to parent the child after she returned to Michigan. Aronis noted DCF’s coordination with Michigan social services and an approved Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) placement in December 2023. Salcedo and Aronis both stressed the trial court’s detailed factual findings and DCF’s monitoring of the placement in Michigan.

Robin conceded a credibility determination is a difficult appellate challenge but said the judge’s credibility assessments were inconsistent and that mother’s statements raised questions. He asked the appeals court to remand for reconsideration focused on father’s fitness so the father can pursue custody or visitation in Michigan without the unfitness finding undermining his position. Salcedo and Aronis said the record supports the trial court’s judgment and urged affirmance.

The panel asked questions about the trial court’s credibility determinations, the scope of father’s service engagement, and whether the judge gave sufficient credit for changes the father made during the case. No decision was announced; the panel took the matter under advisement.