By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Calhoun Circuit Court did not give a mother and her child a reasonable chance at reunification, nor did they provide her with what would be required to make reunification possible, the Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision issued Thursday.
In a published opinion released Friday written by Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado, joined by Judge Michelle Rick, the majority in Re C. Walters (COA Docket No. 369318) reversed the trial court’s termination of parental rights.
Judge Christopher Murray dissented in part, writing that the majority correctly reversed the trial court’s ruling, however, he did not feel there was a need to address whether the order also violated the mother’s constitutional right to due process.
The case involved DHHS seeking and obtaining termination of parental rights against the mother, who claimed they nullified her rights without providing a pathway to reunification and further failing to allege the existence of a potential exception to its duty to provide that pathway.
The court terminated the rights without offering a clear path to reunification, while also noting her many years’ struggle with substance abuse.
Upon appeal, Maldonado wrote that it was well established that parents have fundamental rights to the care of their children and that the Legislature created a statutory scheme to elevate reunification over termination of rights.
To that end, DHHS must make those efforts before seeking termination.
“Under no circumstances may a trial court terminate a parent’s rights without first finding that one of these exceptions applies,” Maldonado wrote. “MCR 3.977(E) lays out the procedure that courts must follow in order to terminate parental rights at the initial disposition pursuant to MCL 712A.19a(2).”
In the case before the court, DHHS failed to do so and the court erred by terminating the mother’s rights, Maldonado added.
The majority also concluded that DHHS violated her due process rights by basing the termination on her alleged failure to comply with an oral safety plan that was implemented before the court took jurisdiction of the case.
“The problems arising in this case as a result of the reliance on this informal, unwritten ‘safety plan’ perfectly illustrate the importance of preparing a written service plan that is given to the parties and placed in the record,” Maldonado wrote. “The record regarding the oral safety plan is particularly blurry in this case given that the testimony of the Macomb County CPS worker was so erratic that the guardian ad litem described it as ‘quite possibly some of the worst worker testimony I’ve ever sat through,’ continuing that it was ‘extremely difficult to unwind’ and concluding that she ‘can’t make heads or tails of it.’”
The failure to provide a concrete plan deprived the mother of fundamental fairness required of due process, Maldonado added.
Murray, in dissent, said that he would have avoided the due process analysis.
“Because the conclusion that the trial court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights for failure to comply with MCL 712A.19a(2) resolves the respondent’s appeal, there is no reason to address whether the order also violates the respondent’s constitutional right to due process of law,” Murray wrote.
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Calhoun Circuit Court did not give a mother and her child a reasonable chance at reunification, nor did they provide her with what would be required to make reunification possible, the Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision issued Thursday.
In a published opinion released Friday written by Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado, joined by Judge Michelle Rick, the majority in Re C. Walters (COA Docket No. 369318) reversed the trial court’s termination of parental rights.
Judge Christopher Murray dissented in part, writing that the majority correctly reversed the trial court’s ruling, however, he did not feel there was a need to address whether the order also violated the mother’s constitutional right to due process.
The case involved DHHS seeking and obtaining termination of parental rights against the mother, who claimed they nullified her rights without providing a pathway to reunification and further failing to allege the existence of a potential exception to its duty to provide that pathway.
The court terminated the rights without offering a clear path to reunification, while also noting her many years’ struggle with substance abuse.
Upon appeal, Maldonado wrote that it was well established that parents have fundamental rights to the care of their children and that the Legislature created a statutory scheme to elevate reunification over termination of rights.
To that end, DHHS must make those efforts before seeking termination.
“Under no circumstances may a trial court terminate a parent’s rights without first finding that one of these exceptions applies,” Maldonado wrote. “MCR 3.977(E) lays out the procedure that courts must follow in order to terminate parental rights at the initial disposition pursuant to MCL 712A.19a(2).”
In the case before the court, DHHS failed to do so and the court erred by terminating the mother’s rights, Maldonado added.
The majority also concluded that DHHS violated her due process rights by basing the termination on her alleged failure to comply with an oral safety plan that was implemented before the court took jurisdiction of the case.
“The problems arising in this case as a result of the reliance on this informal, unwritten ‘safety plan’ perfectly illustrate the importance of preparing a written service plan that is given to the parties and placed in the record,” Maldonado wrote. “The record regarding the oral safety plan is particularly blurry in this case given that the testimony of the Macomb County CPS worker was so erratic that the guardian ad litem described it as ‘quite possibly some of the worst worker testimony I’ve ever sat through,’ continuing that it was ‘extremely difficult to unwind’ and concluding that she ‘can’t make heads or tails of it.’”
The failure to provide a concrete plan deprived the mother of fundamental fairness required of due process, Maldonado added.
Murray, in dissent, said that he would have avoided the due process analysis.
“Because the conclusion that the trial court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights for failure to comply with MCL 712A.19a(2) resolves the respondent’s appeal, there is no reason to address whether the order also violates the respondent’s constitutional right to due process of law,” Murray wrote.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
