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 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 COA reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated mother's parental rights due to two-year child support order compliance period. The COA also affirmed the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence.

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Trial court relied on an outdated statutory definition of “relative” when deciding to terminate a mother’s parental rights.

The MI Supreme Court has ordered the Ingham County Circuit Court to appoint appellate counsel for the respondents in a termination of parental rights case.

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.

“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.

The Michigan Supreme Court will not hear the appeal in a termination of parental rights case.

Respondent-father had the ability to provide “consistent support though not ample support” for his children while he was incarcerated but did not do so.

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.