The Trial Court’s best interest analysis in terminating Respondent-Father’s parental rights was “erroneously incomplete” due to the Trial Court’s failure to consider CJM’s placement with a “relative” as defined by MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) during the best interest determination.

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding did not “articulate an adequate basis or make sufficient factual findings to justify its denial of jurisdiction” over the minor child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court in this child removal case properly accepted the respondent-mother’s waiver of a probable cause hearing and did not err by enforcing that waiver in subsequent proceedings, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s order on the basis that the Trial Court could not take jurisdiction because the minor child is protected under a no-contact order with Respondent and the minor child is living in a fit home environment with the non-respondent mother, who has been protecting the minor child and meeting her needs.

The Trial Court did not clearly err when it determined termination of Respondent-Father’s parental rights was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination was in the minor child, KS’, best interests.

The Trial Court plainly erred when it found that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify Respondent-Mother with her minor children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her appellate rights following the Trial Court’s removal of the children from Respondent-Mother’s care.

The father in this termination of parental rights case did not have standing to claim that his child’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Michigan Supreme Court determined that DHHS “has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.”

Trial Court was correct in stating that respondent-father lacked standing to challenge the effectiveness of the child’s lawyer-guardian ad litem.

Trial court relied on an outdated statutory definition of “relative” when deciding to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

Trial Court’s order for termination of parental rights vacated and remanded due to failure to serve Respondent and failure to offer new hearing.

The trial court wrongly held that the statutory grounds for jurisdiction over the child were established by a preponderance of the evidence.

The termination of the respondents’ parental rights must be vacated because the trial court didn’t properly conduct the adjudication hearing in the case.

The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the child, but did not have the authority to order visits between the child and her maternal siblings.

“We reverse and remand for further proceedings on whether termination is in the children’s best interests,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The trial court properly terminated the respondent-mother’s parental rights because termination was in the children’s best interests.