00:00

Recent Updates on Termination of Parental Rights Cases in Michigan

Updates from various cases in Michigan involving the termination of parental rights. Key points include court decisions on juvenile guardianship, delays in filing petitions against fathers, jurisdiction issues, parental efforts for reunification, and child welfare considerations. The cases highlight legal complexities and challenges faced in ensuring the welfare of children in the state's legal system.

boaca
Download Presentation

Recent Updates on Termination of Parental Rights Cases in Michigan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 2023 Case Law and Court Rules Update State Bar of Michigan Children’s Law Section

  2. Termination of Parental Rights • In re Hull / In re TM Hull, Nos. 361537 & 361538 (February 21, 2023) • Court ordered juvenile guardianship when child was 16 • At 18, she signed youth adult guardianship assistance extension agreement, extending guardianship • Child arrested for DV against guardian, who petitioned to terminate • DHHS argued she wasn’t eligible for extended foster care services • Trial court reopened NA case, and DHHS appealed • COA held that MCL 712A.19a(17) allowed trial court to reopen the case

  3. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re AK Dixon, No. 363388 (April 20, 2023) • Trial court removed from mother, but DHHS delayed filing petition against father who was incarcerated • Father was putative at time of removal and timely requested DHHS assistance to establish paternity • Paternity established within ~4 months of removal, but DHHS waited another ~8 months to file petition making father respondent and another ~4 months to serve • Father requested fictive kin placement before being made a respondent • Trial court agreed with DHHS that fictive kin wasn’t appropriate and kept child in foster care

  4. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • On appeal, father argued that he had right to direct placement so long as he wasn’t a respondent • COA majority agreed that “DHHS bypassed father’s right to direct the placement of his child by delaying his legal ability to assert that right” • Still found that, because child was in placement at time father was made legal, trial court could override his placement decision • Applied Mathews v Eldridge due process test • Dissent would conditionally reverse for DHHS to make reasonable efforts to prevent removal from father • What is the extent of Sanders?

  5. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re AC Leach / In re JK Spaller-Leach, Nos. 362618 & 362621 (May 18, 2023) • Father charged with criminal child abuse and held on bond • Children with mother, and no allegations against her • Trial court dismissed petition because the children were not at significant risk of harm, told DHHS they could refile if father was released • COA affirmed, finding no basis for jurisdiction • Trial court must examine child’s situation at the time petition is filed

  6. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re Miller Minors, No. 364195 (June 22, 2023) • Mother used inappropriate physical discipline on children • Agreed to a safety plan and voluntarily completed a parenting class • DHHS filed petition for jurisdiction after mother completed the class • At bench trial, mother’s counsel made motion for directed verdict, and trial court granted the motion • COA agreed with DHHS that a motion for directed verdict wasn’t allowed under court rules but that it was harmless error because there was no basis for jurisdiction

  7. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re MJC, No. 365616 (November 21, 2023) • Child removed from mother after testing positive at birth, placed with father • Removed from father for father’s drug use • Father didn’t rectify barriers and pled no contest to allegations in supplemental petition • Trial court found it was in child’s best interest to terminate rights • On appeal, he argued that DHHS didn’t make reasonable efforts • DHHS argued that he waived that argument by pleading no contest

  8. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • Court of Appeals found that pleading to the allegations in a supplemental petition to terminate parental rights does not waive the argument that DHHS has not made reasonable efforts toward reunification • Issue wasn’t preserved and was reviewed for plain error • Court found that father was offered adequate services and that DHHS did make reasonable efforts • Affirmed best interests finding and termination

  9. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re J Thornhill, No. 165740 (MSC order; August 11, 2023) • Child suffered severe injuries while visiting Michigan with mother; mother charged with first-degree child abuse and held on bond • Child returned to father in Florida, but not before DHHS filed petition • Trial court found it lacked jurisdiction b/c child safe with father • LGAL appealed • Supreme Court remanded to trial court to communicate with Florida per UCCJEA, said failure to communicate was not harmless

  10. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • In re J J Holbrook, No. 164489 • Child discharged from in-patient mental health treatment, but mom refused to pick him up because of concerns that he was dangerous to the family • DHHS filed petition, and trial court took jurisdiction • Mother argued that she did not fail to provide proper care/custody • Court of Appeals reluctantly found that jurisdiction was proper • While case was pending with MSC, trial court ended jurisdiction • MSC remanded to determine if case was moot

  11. Termination of Parental Rights (cont.) • Question of whether Court could still hear case due to potential collateral consequences such as Central Registry • Issued second order in December finding that case was moot • Cavanagh concurrence urging Legislature to explore alternatives for circumstances where jurisdiction is necessary to child’s mental health needs but parent isn’t culpable

  12. Adoption • In re NRC, No. 362915 (March 16, 2023) • Mom filed petition to terminate dad’s right for step-parent adoption • Child support order entered in 2017, but dad was inconsistent with payments (some months $0, some months paying large lump sums) • As of May 2021 (month before petition was filed), dad was a week behind on payments • Trial court granted directed verdict to dad • Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that small arrearage meant that dad had substantially complied with support order

  13. Adoption (cont.) • In re BWJ, No. 363607 (March 30, 2023) • Child born in 2018/19, but paternity not established before adoption petition in 2022 • At hearing, putative father admitted that he hadn’t seen the child in almost 3 years and had tried sporadically to provide support • Trial court found best interests favored termination but did not consider all statutory best interests factors • Court of Appeals remanded to trial court for new best interests hearing because record didn’t support decision to terminate rights

  14. Juvenile Delinquency • In re EE/AE, Nos. 358457/358458 (April 13, 2023) • Two kids charged with truancy • One attorney appointed for both kids • Kids went through three attorneys, all of whom withdrew because dad refused to allow kids to have private conversation with them • Kids were self-represented at trial after trial court changed last attorney to stand-by counsel without ask kids whether they were waiving right to counsel • Court of Appeals reversed

  15. Juvenile Delinquency (cont.) • Found that kids had right to counsel under statute and court rule and never waived that right on the record • “[A] request for self-representation must be clear and unequivocal.” • Trial court failed to follow procedures of court rule for waiving counsel • One concurrence would have found a constitutional right to counsel in truancy cases, but other concurrence disagreed

  16. Juvenile Delinquency (cont.) • In re NC, No. 361548 (November 21, 2023) • 13-year-old questioned about threatening statements he made in a video posted to social media • Pulled out of class during a lockdown, escorted to principal’s office, and questioned by local police chief; child’s father and principal were present • Police chief never read child his Mirandawarnings, believing that it wasn’t a custodial interrogation • Child made incriminating statements

  17. Juvenile Delinquency (cont.) • Trial court granted motion to suppress statements • Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that being questioned by law enforcement in the principal’s office was relevant to custody analysis • Despite relatively short questioning and presence of child’s father, child would not have felt free to leave • Schools generally more restrictive of children’s movements, and child could fear consequences for leaving the interrogation • Child was in custodial interrogation, and police didn’t read Miranda warnings, so statements inadmissible

  18. Juvenile Delinquency (cont.) • People v Williams, No. 164910 (May 12, 2023) • Youth tried as adult convicted of murder, armed robbery, and carjacking • On appeal, challenged constitutionality of automatic waiver process • Court of Appeals affirmed, and Supreme Court denied leave • In concurrence, Justice Welch called into question the constitutional underpinnings of both traditional and automatic waiver • Relied on research cited in US and Michigan Supreme Court decisions • “[J]uveniles are different than adults.”

  19. Court Rules • ADM Files No. 2021-21 and 2023-05 • Amending MCR 3.613 (name change petitions) • No publication of notice if petitioner establishes good cause • Petitioner must still notify non-custodial parent, including by alternate service with court permission • Court to pay publication costs if it has waived fees

  20. Court Rules (cont.) • ADM File No. 2022-05 • Amending MCRs 3.977, 3.993, 7.311, & 7.316 • Establishes procedure for assessing whether a respondent in a TPR appeal was denied the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel • Procedure similar to that in criminal appeals

  21. Court Rules (cont.) • ADM File No. 2022-34 • Amending MCRs 3.913, 3.943, 3.977, & 3.993 and adding MCR 3.937 • Mandating that youth are advised on their appellate rights at dispo and when they are removed from care/custody of parents (i.e., detention) • Extend time for requesting appellate counsel from 14 to 21 days in DL/NA

  22. Court Rules (cont.) • ADM File No. 2023-24 (pending) • Would amend MCRs 3.993 & 6.428 • Restoration of appellate rights • ADM File No. 2022-24 (pending) • Would amend MCRs 6.907, 6.909, & 6.933 • Clarify that youth in automatic waiver cases should not be placed in isolation to be kept apart from adults

More Related