Respondent parents did not abandon their child and DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to remove the child. Therefore, the COA affirmed the trial court’s decision to decline jurisdiction.

The Trial Court did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), as Respondent-Mother was not “able” to provide DVL with the proper and necessary support for his care. The Trial Court also did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(2), as Respondent-Mother did not “neglect” DVL because Respondent-Mother did not engage in “negligent treatment” of DVL as defined by MCL 722.602(1)(d).

The trial court’s finding that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests must be “conditionally reverse[d],” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with its statutory duty to investigate relative placements.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated part of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in In re JMG/JGG/JMG, Minors, remanding the termination of parental rights case and ordering the trial court to “make an individualized best-interests determination as to each child.”

Previously, the Court of Appeals found plain error after the Trial Court held that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her right to appeal the Trial Court’s removal of the children from her care.

An order terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing must be reversed because the trial court’s analysis was “flawed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A probate court’s order awarding an attorney his fees from a decedent’s estate must be reversed because the Department of Health and Human Services’ claim for fees under the Michigan Medicaid Estate Recovery Program has higher priority.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s order terminating Respondent-Mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). DHHS failed to plead aggravated circumstances, and also failed to provide facts supporting their request for termination at initial disposition.

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

“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.

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights in this case and doing so was in the child’s best interest.