By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A woman whose parenting rights were terminated because it was alleged she allowed instances of sexual and child abuse to occur under her watch had her due process rights substantially violated during court proceedings, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled last Thursday.
In a published opinion released las Friday written by Judge Adrienne Young, joined by Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Sima Patel, the panel In Re Barber/Espinoza, Minors (COA Docket No. 369359) found that the Lenawee Circuit Court violated the respondents due process rights, reversed the judge’s opinion in the matter and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The petitioner in the case filed a custody request that alleged it was contrary to the children’s welfare to remain with the respondent because of improper supervision, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, threatened harm, and drug abuse. An interview with one of the minors created a record of testimony that on two separate occasions, the respondent and mother observed adult men sexually abusing her and failed to stop it. The interview and testimony also revealed the mother’s heroin addiction and that the mother allowed the at least one of the instances of abuse to obtain drugs.
The trial court suspended all parenting time and contact after a preliminary hearing, finding the testimony offered by caseworkers in addition to the interview with the victim as sufficient probable cause.
In a separate order, the trial court also found that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal were not required because of the aggravated circumstances involving the disclosure of abuse.
At no point did the trial court inform respondent of her right to appeal. The woman also had told the court that she was having a breakdown with her counsel because he did not appear to believe she was innocent while representing her. The trial court said that was not a matter before the court and should be taken up with the public defender’s office. The attorney in question, however, appeared in court as her representative in dates after that revelation.
The trial court ultimately found she was an unfit parent who had also caused her children to face lifelong trauma.
That said, upon appeal, the mother said her due process rights were violated throughout the proceedings.
Young wrote that there was an error but one that took place prior to adjudication of the matter, and was not tainted by a constitutional factor.
“The error nevertheless impaired the respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over her children in the first instance, and it unquestionably affected the very framework within which this case progressed and undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings,” Young wrote. “As explained, there is simply no way to know how termination may have proceeded differently when the respondent was improperly denied any opportunity to rectify her situation and demonstrate a willingness and ability to parent notwithstanding her earlier concerning conduct.”
The trial court also committed a plain error when it failed to advise the mother of her appellate rights, calling that ruling similarly prejudicial.
“We reiterate that the respondent was prejudiced because the trial court’s erroneous aggravated circumstances finding impaired respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over her children in the first instance, and it unquestionably affected the very framework within which this case progressed and undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings,” Young wrote. “Notably, this occurred in conjunction with the initial removal of the respondent’s children. Thus, had the court instructed respondent of her appellate rights at this time as required, she very well could have succeeded on the aggravated circumstances issue before the case proceeded immediately to termination.”
Her claim for a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct was not treated with the same deference, as Young noted the panel did not find the trial court’s refusal to investigate the attorney breakdown claim as erroneous.
Gongwer News Service
A woman whose parenting rights were terminated because it was alleged she allowed instances of sexual and child abuse to occur under her watch had her due process rights substantially violated during court proceedings, a unanimous Court of Appeals panel ruled last Thursday.
In a published opinion released las Friday written by Judge Adrienne Young, joined by Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Sima Patel, the panel In Re Barber/Espinoza, Minors (COA Docket No. 369359) found that the Lenawee Circuit Court violated the respondents due process rights, reversed the judge’s opinion in the matter and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The petitioner in the case filed a custody request that alleged it was contrary to the children’s welfare to remain with the respondent because of improper supervision, sexual abuse, sex trafficking, threatened harm, and drug abuse. An interview with one of the minors created a record of testimony that on two separate occasions, the respondent and mother observed adult men sexually abusing her and failed to stop it. The interview and testimony also revealed the mother’s heroin addiction and that the mother allowed the at least one of the instances of abuse to obtain drugs.
The trial court suspended all parenting time and contact after a preliminary hearing, finding the testimony offered by caseworkers in addition to the interview with the victim as sufficient probable cause.
In a separate order, the trial court also found that reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate removal were not required because of the aggravated circumstances involving the disclosure of abuse.
At no point did the trial court inform respondent of her right to appeal. The woman also had told the court that she was having a breakdown with her counsel because he did not appear to believe she was innocent while representing her. The trial court said that was not a matter before the court and should be taken up with the public defender’s office. The attorney in question, however, appeared in court as her representative in dates after that revelation.
The trial court ultimately found she was an unfit parent who had also caused her children to face lifelong trauma.
That said, upon appeal, the mother said her due process rights were violated throughout the proceedings.
Young wrote that there was an error but one that took place prior to adjudication of the matter, and was not tainted by a constitutional factor.
“The error nevertheless impaired the respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over her children in the first instance, and it unquestionably affected the very framework within which this case progressed and undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings,” Young wrote. “As explained, there is simply no way to know how termination may have proceeded differently when the respondent was improperly denied any opportunity to rectify her situation and demonstrate a willingness and ability to parent notwithstanding her earlier concerning conduct.”
The trial court also committed a plain error when it failed to advise the mother of her appellate rights, calling that ruling similarly prejudicial.
“We reiterate that the respondent was prejudiced because the trial court’s erroneous aggravated circumstances finding impaired respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over her children in the first instance, and it unquestionably affected the very framework within which this case progressed and undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings,” Young wrote. “Notably, this occurred in conjunction with the initial removal of the respondent’s children. Thus, had the court instructed respondent of her appellate rights at this time as required, she very well could have succeeded on the aggravated circumstances issue before the case proceeded immediately to termination.”
Her claim for a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct was not treated with the same deference, as Young noted the panel did not find the trial court’s refusal to investigate the attorney breakdown claim as erroneous.
