The Court of Appeals has addressed the one-parent in the context of a plea taken from a nonparent adult, In re Slater/Wiemer, issued March 25, 2014 (Docket 317132). The one-parent doctrine is still pending before the Michigan Supreme Court in re Sanders/Laird, which has challenged the idea that one parent can offer a plea to the jurisdiction in a child welfare case which will drag a non-offending, non-respondent, presumptively parent into the child welfare proceeding. Applying the one-parent doctrine to the context of a plea by a nonparent adult is even more disturbing. But that is for another day and may be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision in Sanders. What was even more disturbing about the Court of Appeals decision in In re Slater/Wiemer, is the Court's incorrect enunciation of the law as to the consequence of adjudication in a child welfare proceeding. The majority opinion states that the adjudicatory phase does not focus on whether parents are unfit to care for the children. This is absolutely an incorrect statement of law. To adjudicate in a child welfare case, the prosecutor has to show, for example, that the home or environment is unfit due to neglect, cruelty, drunkenness, criminality, or depravity. MCL 712A.2(b)(2). How is that not a finding of fitness? I think one of the problems with the one parent doctrine is that it does decide fitness. Also, I once there is adjudication, the parents can and are placed on the central registry for abuse and neglect. Also concerning about the decision is the premise it espouses that a nonoffending parent has the same procedural protections when the court takes jurisdiction as the offending parent has (or here the nonparent adult). Contrary to this decision, the offending person has the right to an adjudication trial to be decided by a JURY, but instead decides to take a plea. The offending parent gets due process. The nonoffending parent does not. There was also two concurrences to this opinion, one was concur in result only and the other concurrence just mentioned that it wanted to hold the case in abeyance pending Sanders but did not think it could because of the delay to finality.