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.

Trial Court properly denied guardian’s request to terminate mother’s parental rights because, even though mother had not had substantial and regular contact with the child for more than 2 years and although mother had not supported the child for more than 2 years, the guardian’s actions prevented phone calls and visits.

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.

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 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.