Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in a termination-of-parental-rights case. Justice Welch dissented, arguing that the trial court violated the respondent-mother’s due-process rights by relying on in camera interviews of the children and provided an inadequate best-interest analysis. The dissent would have vacated the best-interest determination and remanded for additional fact-finding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision addressing the trial court's use of an in camera interview in a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding.
- Whether the trial court's in camera interview and limited best-interest findings required vacatur and remand under Michigan due-process principles and plain-error review.
Holdings
- The application for leave to appeal was denied because the Michigan Supreme Court was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed.
- Justice Welch's dissent stated that Michigan law does not permit a trial court in a termination-of-parental-rights case to conduct an in camera interview of a minor for purposes of determining the minor's best interests.
- Justice Welch's dissent stated that the trial court's best-interest findings were inadequately detailed because the court failed to address most relevant factors, including the existence or nonexistence of a parent-child bond.
Key quotations
“It is now well settled that, unlike in child custody matters, Michigan law does not permit a trial court presiding over a termination of parental rights case to conduct an in camera interview of a minor for the purpose of determining that minor’s best interests.” (p. 2)
“Cross-examination is the quintessential example of the procedural safeguards necessary to permit effective, accurate, and reliable fact-finding.” (p. 3)
Factual background
The trial court returned one child to respondent-mother's care but terminated her parental rights to two other children. In making its best-interest determination, the court relied on the relative advantages of the foster home, the possibility of adoption, and the children's preferences obtained through an in camera interview. The interview was conducted with the children's lawyer-guardian ad litem present, while respondent-mother viewed the proceeding by video; the children were not placed under oath and respondent-mother had no opportunity to cross-examine them.
Procedural history
The Genesee Circuit Court Family Division terminated respondent-mother's parental rights to two children while returning a third child to her care. The trial court relied in part on the children's preferences obtained through an in camera interview. The Court of Appeals recognized that the interview violated due process under existing Michigan precedent but declined to grant relief under plain-error review. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.