Summary
The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated an order terminating respondents’ parental rights at initial disposition and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the trial court plainly erred by finding that aggravated circumstances excused the Department of Health and Human Services from making reasonable reunification efforts without making the required factual findings supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court directed DHHS to prepare case service plans and ordered reasonable efforts toward reunification unless a legally sufficient determination otherwise is made.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by terminating respondents' parental rights at initial disposition without properly determining that aggravated circumstances under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a) and MCL 722.638 existed.
- Whether the statutory aggravated-circumstances exceptions require a judicial finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the statutory abuse and unreasonable-risk requirements are satisfied before reasonable reunification efforts may be excused.
- Whether the trial court's failure to make the required findings affected respondents' substantial rights and warranted vacatur of the termination order.
Holdings
- A trial court may terminate parental rights at initial disposition without reasonable reunification efforts only when a statutory exception applies and the court makes the required judicial determination of aggravated circumstances.
- Before excusing reasonable reunification efforts, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a statutorily identified individual abused the child or a sibling in a manner including one of the enumerated serious circumstances and that the respondent was a suspected perpetrator or suspected of placing the child at unreasonable risk by failing to take reasonable steps to intervene.
- The trial court's references to improper supervision and an unfit home did not constitute the required aggravated-circumstances findings because the court did not identify a statutory basis, articulate supporting facts, or find by clear and convincing evidence that the shooting was included in statutory abuse by a listed individual.
Key quotations
“In most circumstances, . . . DHHS has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to achieve reunification before a court may terminate parental rights,” (at 3)
“Only when an ambiguity exists in the language of the statute is it proper for a court to go beyond the statutory text to ascertain legislative intent.” (at 3)
“The listed individual perpetrating the abuse need not have also been the perpetrator of a circumstance listed in MCL 722.638(1)(a); the statute is still satisfied if a different individual committed one of the six delineated circumstances, so long as that circumstance was included in the abuse perpetrated by the listed individual.” (at 4)
“The shooting incident was certainly tragic and also troubling, inasmuch as several young children, including MKB, were left without adult supervision in an area of respondents’ home containing an unsecured, loaded gun.” (at 7)
Factual background
DHHS became involved after 21-month-old MKB was shot by his six-year-old cousin while the children were in respondents' care. Respondent-mother had left the home briefly, and an unsecured, loaded handgun placed on a high shelf was found and fired by the cousin; MKB survived but required reconstructive surgery. The trial court terminated respondents' parental rights at initial disposition without requiring DHHS to provide reasonable reunification efforts, relying on unexplained findings of improper supervision and an unfit home.
Procedural history
The trial court authorized DHHS's petition, removed the children from respondents' care, and granted supervised parenting time. Although the petition and preliminary hearing did not identify or litigate aggravated circumstances, the trial court indicated that reasonable efforts toward reunification were unnecessary, later found statutory grounds for termination, and terminated respondents' parental rights after a best-interests hearing. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court plainly erred by terminating parental rights at initial disposition without properly determining that a statutory exception to the reasonable-efforts requirement existed.
Remand instructions
DHHS shall prepare a case service plan for each respondent, and the trial court shall order reasonable efforts toward reunification unless or until a determination is properly sought and made on the record that such efforts are excused by law. The court of appeals did not retain jurisdiction.