Mom Loses Kids For Letting Drug Dealer Have Sex With Her 13-Year-Old

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 07/31/2025) A mother who allowed the sexual abuse of her child in exchange for drugs will not have her parental rights reinstated, the Michigan Supreme Court held Thursday.

The unanimous court agreed that the trial court erred by failing to advise the mother in In re Barber/Espinoza, Minors about her right to appeal the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services’ removal decision.

However, “the error was not prejudicial,” the opinion from Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh reads.

The court held that DHHS wasn’t required to “make reasonable efforts to reunify the family” per statute because she facilitated the criminal sexual conduct involving penetration of her 13-year-old daughter and because she was suspected of placing her minor son at “unreasonable risk of harm.”

DHHS removed the mother’s two minor children, identified in court records as daughter CB and son ME, in February 2023 after the 13-year-old reported that her mother twice gave a male acquaintance permission to sexually assault her in exchange for drugs.

The trial court placed the children with their father and ordered reunification efforts were not needed. The trial court then terminated the mother’s parental rights, concluding that it was in the children’s best interest.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion that held there were no aggravated circumstances warranting the termination and that the failure to advise the mother of her appellate rights following the children’s removal from her care.

Justice Kimberly Ann Thomas did not participate because she may have independent knowledge regarding the case and Justice Noah Hood did not participate because the court considered the case before he assumed office.

No Decision On Two Criminal Appeals

The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments in March on two criminal cases challenging the constitutionality of lifetime electronic monitoring, but Thursday ordered the parties to submit additional briefs.

In People v. Daryl Martin and People v. Robert Kardasz, the court wants the parties to address the defendants’ length of parole and what impact, if any, that term of parole has on the constitutionality of the defendants’ sentence to lifetime electronic monitoring.

Martin was convicted of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) and second-degree CSC, and he was sentenced to 25-40 years in prison and 10-15 years, respectively.

Kardasz was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and was initially sentenced to 30-45.8 years in prison, but on remand from the appeals court he was re-sentenced to 25-40 years in prison.

Justice Richard Bernstein did not participate in either decision and Justice Noah Hood did not participate because the court heard oral arguments on the application before he assumed office.