In re Riffe

The minor children of Charles and Shirley Riffe (defendant) were adjudicated dependent or subject to the temporary jurisdiction of a probate court due to neglect. Previously, Shirley Riffe’s older daughter had been removed from her care for neglect and not returned. One-year-old David was removed from the Riffes’ care and placed in foster care due to a diagnosis of failure to thrive, which was based on physical and emotional neglect. David’s brother, Charles Jr., was also removed when police responded to the home due to a fight and found Charles Jr., bruised and dirty. At an adjudicatory hearing, the probate court heard testimony that after David’s failure-to-thrive diagnosis, the Riffes had missed a doctor’s appointment for David and did not reschedule the appointment, placing David at further risk. David was both underweight and too short for his age. In contrast, while David was in foster care, his weight and height increased significantly. Also, the probate court heard testimony from a child-care worker who stated that on the first day that Charles Jr. had come to the center, at 14 months of age, she provided Charles Jr. with a new bottle because the one he arrived with was blackened with green slime on the bottle’s nipple and hair wrapped around the nipple. A month later, Charles Jr. arrived with a urine burn, possibly from a diaper that had not been changed for days. Shirley testified that she primarily cared for David, and Charles primarily cared for Charles Jr. because she was not able to handle both children. At a dispositional hearing, a caseworker for the department of social services (plaintiff) testified that the Riffes had not made much effort to improve or tried to have their children returned to their custody. The Riffes had poor parenting skills and poor mental functioning, and they did not submit to psychological evaluations. Additionally, Charles testified that David was not provided with three meals daily, David and Charles Jr. should be adopted, and he intended to terminate his parental rights. The probate court found that it had clear and convincing evidence to terminate the parental rights of Charles and Shirley. Shirley appealed, arguing that the desirability of termination of parental rights had not been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence.