In this case (In re Trumble, No 330627) Respondent Mother
appealed the Gladwin Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her
child arguing that the trial court violated her due process by its failure to
sua sponte or on its own appoint an attorney to represent her. The Court of
Appeals, affirmed the trial court order, stating that because the respondent
knowingly declined the offer of appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing
and had never shown she suffered from an obvious cognitive impairment, she
failed to show that the trial court denied her due process by declining to sua
sponte appoint counsel.
The facts show that the Respondent:
1.Waived
counsel at the preliminary hearing stating she could read, she wished to represent herself and admit to the
petition and participate in a service plan.
2. Although the trial court told her such admissions
could lead to termination, she admitted to the allegations.
3. She received notice of subsequent hearings but didn’t
attend.
4. Only visited her child 5 times in 4 months.
5. Failed to comply with the service plans.
6. Failed to appear at the termination hearing although
notified by mail and by phone and continued to reside in Indiana.
Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in making decisions
regarding the care,
In this case, Respondent failed to appear at the termination
hearing and moved out of state. By her behavior she affirmatively distanced
herself from her own case rather than affirmatively working toward return of
her child or asking for appointment of counsel.
Respondent also
argued that the trial court should have appointed counsel because both the
court and the case worker expressed concern about her understanding of the
seriousness of her situation. Unlike the cited opinion In re Hicks/Brown, Minors, (Docket No. 328870, issued April 26,
2016), where the court held that the DHHS and courts must actively assist
intellectually, cognitively or developmentally impaired parents, there were no
overt signs of cognitive impairment in Respondent as was apparent in Hicks.
Respondent was articulate and had no apparent difficulty asking and answering
questions.
The Court of
Appeals held that the trial court didn’t deny her due process rights by
declining sua sponte counsel and the decision below was affirmed.
Labels: appeal of termination of parental rights, Court of Appeals, DHHS, MCR 3.915(B), michigan court of appeals, termination of parental rights, termination of parental rights appeal
