Supreme Court Reversed and Remanded a Court of Appeals’ Judgment, Affirming Termination of Parental Rights
Order Published: 04/08/2022
SCT Docket No. 163725 & COA Docket No. 356585
Wayne County Circuit Court
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued an order reversing and remanding a Court of Appeals’ judgment, which affirmed a Trial Court’s determination terminating parental rights. The Supreme Court determined that reasonable efforts had not been made by the Department, as no service plan had been created to attempt to reunify the children with their mother. The Department was asked to answer the mother’s Supreme Court brief, and “[i]n lieu of filing an answer, the Department joined the respondent-mother in a motion to remand the case to the Trial Court because the Department concedes that it did not make reasonable efforts to reunite the family as required by statute.”
Facts & COA Opinion:
While the respondent-mother was hospitalized, her two eldest children, DL and DE, were placed in temporary custody with Child Protective Services (CPS). A CPS investigator visited the respondent in the hospital, and the respondent-mother explained that the children’s father’s home was an unfit environment. Over her objection, the Department approved placement of DL and DE with their father. DE was hospitalized for severe injuries consistent with nonaccidental trauma while the respondent was still hospitalized, presumed to be caused by the father. The Department sought termination of the parental rights of both the respondent-mother and the father. At the preliminary hearing, the trial court found aggravated circumstances of severe physical abuse by the father and excused the Department from making reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. But it found reasonable efforts were still required as to the respondent-mother. The Trial Court continued to reiterate the need for reasonable efforts as the case progressed. Although the Department never created a case service plan, the Trial Court nevertheless terminated the respondent’s parental rights, finding that the mental health services that she sought and received on her own amounted to reasonable efforts by the Department.
On appeal, the respondent-mother challenged the Department’s failure to make reasonable efforts. The Court of Appeals began its analysis by concluding that the respondent-mother failed to preserve the issue because she failed to “raise the issue at the time the services [were] offered.” In re Smith-Taylor, ___ Mich App at ___; slip op at 5. The Court of Appeals went on to hold that the “the record reflects that the children’s father lived in the home” and that the “respondent allowed the children’s father to become the children’s caregiver.” Id. at ___; slip op at 6. The court reached this conclusion despite the record showing that at the relevant time the respondent-mother was living separately from the children’s father and told a CPS investigator that the children would not be safe in his home. The panel concluded that aggravated circumstances applied to the respondent because she had “placed DE ‘at an unreasonable risk of harm due to the parent’s failure to take reasonable steps to intervene to eliminate that risk.’ ” Id., quoting MCL 722.638(2).
Key Appellate Rulings:
Reasonable Efforts
The Supreme Court began by dismissing the Court of Appeals contention that respondent failed to preserve the issue of reasonable efforts. Explaining that since, “services were never offered, the panel created an impossible obstacle for preservation and then determined that the respondent had not met it.”
The Supreme Court noted that the Court of Appeals completely misconstrued the record in this case, and thus the Court of Appeals mistakenly found that aggravated circumstances existed. The Supreme Court continues by saying that even if the Court of Appeals believed that aggravated circumstances existed, the Trial Court never made that finding. The Supreme Court stated that under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), the trial court is required to make a judicial determination that aggravated circumstances exist before the Department is excused from making reasonable efforts. The trial court determined that aggravated circumstances did not exist as to the respondent. In fact, it continued to reiterate the need for reasonable efforts throughout the progression of this case. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that there were aggravated circumstances—based on a misunderstanding of the facts—cannot justify the Department’s failure to make reasonable efforts.”
