A new published Michigan Court of Appeals decision provides important guidance for parents involved in child protective proceedings. In In re C. Pacyga, No. 375267 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2026), the Court held that a parent’s past abuse of one child may be relevant when evaluating the safety of another child, but past conduct does not automatically establish grounds for terminating parental rights. The court must consider the parent’s current circumstances and the evidence concerning the child.

What Happened in Pacyga?

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition concerning a newborn child and sought termination of the mother’s parental rights. The mother had previously lost custody of an older child following abuse in 2017.

By the time of the proceedings involving her newborn, however, the mother had made substantial changes in her life. She was living in a supportive housing program, working full-time, participating in counseling and recovery programs, had completed parenting classes, and had developed a strong support system. Witnesses described significant progress, and her psychological evaluation gave her a positive prognosis.

The trial court nevertheless terminated her parental rights, relying substantially on the prior abuse. The mother appealed.

What Did the Michigan Court of Appeals Decide?

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over the new born child but reversed the termination of parental rights. The Court concluded that DHHS had not presented clear and convincing evidence establishing statutory grounds for termination.

Michigan recognizes the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. Under that doctrine, how a parent treated one child may be evidence of how the parent could treat another child. But the Court emphasized that such evidence is not conclusive. Its significance depends upon the circumstances of the individual case.

The Court found that the trial court improperly treated the mother’s prior conduct as sufficient evidence that the newborn would be harmed. The prior abuse had occurred eight years earlier, under substantially different circumstances. The mother had since removed herself from those circumstances, participated successfully in therapy and other programs, developed a support system, obtained employment, and demonstrated significant rehabilitation.

Why This Decision Matters in Michigan CPS Cases

The decision does not mean that a parent’s history of abuse or neglect is irrelevant. It can be important evidence. But a termination decision must be supported by the statutory requirements applicable to the child involved in the current proceeding.

DHHS must prove at least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The Court stressed that this burden requires more than speculation about what might happen in the future.

The Court also considered the passage of time, changed circumstances, and the mother’s rehabilitative progress when determining whether her prior conduct established a current likelihood of harm.

What Should Michigan Parents Know?

A previous CPS case does not automatically determine the outcome of a later case involving another child. Prior conduct may be considered, but the evidence must still establish the statutory grounds required for the requested action.

If CPS is seeking jurisdiction, removal, or termination of parental rights, the allegations and supporting evidence should be examined carefully. The Pacyga decision demonstrates why the distinction between past conduct and present evidence can be critical.

Parents facing a Michigan CPS proceeding should obtain legal advice promptly. The Kronzek Firm PLC represents parents in child protective proceedings and can evaluate the allegations, evidence, and legal issues involved in a particular case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can CPS terminate my parental rights because I previously abused another child?

Not automatically. Prior abuse may be relevant, but Pacyga explains that it does not, standing alone, establish a reasonable likelihood that another child will be harmed.

What burden of proof applies to termination of parental rights?

DHHS must establish at least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence.

Does rehabilitation matter in a Michigan CPS case?

It can. The Court considered the mother’s treatment, education, employment, support system, and progress when evaluating whether the evidence established a current likelihood of harm.

Can CPS use evidence about what happened to another child?

Yes. Michigan’s anticipatory-neglect doctrine allows evidence concerning how a parent treated one child to be considered when evaluating the risk to another. But the evidence is not automatically conclusive.

What should I do if CPS is seeking to terminate my parental rights?

CPS proceedings can move quickly, and termination permanently affects the parent-child relationship. A parent facing termination should have an experienced Michigan CPS attorney review the allegations, evidence, procedural posture, and applicable statutory grounds as early as possible.

The Kronzek Firm PLC represents parents in Michigan child protective proceedings. Contact the firm to discuss your specific circumstances and the legal options available in your case.

Our highly respected attorneys have fought for thousands of Michigan clients for more than 30 years. You can reach our Lansing office 24/7 by calling (517) 886-1000 or by email at contactus@kronzek.law. Our team is available 24/7 for emergency consultation. 

[Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult an attorney for personalized guidance.]