The
Michigan Supreme Court has peremptorily vacated the termination of a mother’s
parental rights, as well as the Michigan Court of Appeals decision upholding
that termination.
As a result, the case has been sent back to
the Ontonagon Circuit Court, Family Division, for a new adjudication hearing.
In In
re Jones, Minors (DocketNo. 326252), the Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of the
mother’s parental rights, despite acknowledging flaws in how the trial court
handled the matter. The appeals court, however, did remand the case so the trial
court could re-examine the best interest factors.
An application for leave to appeal was promptly
filed with the Supreme Court.
In the application, it was argued the trial
court violated the mother’s due process rights by not adjudicating her fitness
before termination. The trial court had failed to inform the mother of her
procedural rights, including her right to an adjudication trial, before issuing
its final decision.
It was
also argued that the Court of Appeals, despite noting the trial court had improperly
adjudicated the mother, refused to address the merits of the appeal, and in so
doing continued to misapply In re Hatcher,
443 Mich 426 (1993). The Supreme Court was asked to clarify that Hatcher does not preclude parents from
challenging adjudicatory errors in termination of parental rights appeals.
In Hatcher,
the Supreme Court held that a juvenile court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is
established when a petition is authorized at the preliminary hearing. Since Hatcher, Michigan courts have continuously
recognized that child-protective cases, including termination of parental rights
actions, involve a single proceeding, therefore allowing parents to raise
errors that occurred at any point in the proceeding or post-dispositional
appeal.
The Supreme Court granted leave in December
2015 (Docket
No. 152595) and limited the issues to:
·
whether Hatcher
correctly applied the collateral attack rule to bar a challenge to the
adjudication as part of an appeal from a termination of parental rights order, notwithstanding
intervening dispositional orders that were appealable of right;
·
if Hatcher
incorrectly applied the collateral attack rule, what must a respondent in a
termination of parental rights proceeding do to preserve for appeal any alleged
errors in the adjudication; and
·
what effect, if any, a party’s failure to
utilize an appeal of right offered under the court rules has on that party’s
subsequent appeal of that issue, in light of the interests of reasonable
finality in child-protective proceedings, which intimately involve the interests
and well-being of children while promoting the goal of reconciliation between
parents and children.
After the Supreme Court granted leave, the
parties filed a joint motion for immediate consideration. It was stipulated
that, under circumstances, the trial court’s ruling should be vacated and the
matter remanded for a new adjudication trial.
On February 17, 2016, the Supreme
Court ordered the trial court and Court of Appeals rulings be
vacated, and remanded the case for a new adjudication determination.
Labels: appeal, appeals, child-protective proceedings, Family, In re Hatcher, Law, Michigan, Michigan Family Law Appeal, Michigan Family Law Appeals, michigan supreme court, termination of parental rights
