933 N.W.2d 751
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- Child born in 2015 to an unmarried mother; respondent is the legal father by affidavit of parentage and had not had contact since infancy; father has history of heroin abuse.
- In April 2018 respondent filed to reestablish contact and seek parenting time and child support.
- In June 2018 the mother and her husband (petitioners) filed for stepparent adoption and sought termination of respondent’s parental rights under MCL 710.51(6).
- Mother’s petition form checked a box stating she had custody “according to a court order,” but at the September 2018 hearing the court found no custody or support order existed.
- Trial court dismissed the termination petition as procedurally deficient, holding MCL 710.51(6) requires the petitioning parent to have custody “according to a court order” before seeking termination; alternatively the court would have denied relief on the merits.
- Petitioners appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the 2016 amendment to MCL 710.51(6) superseded In re AJR and that the statute unambiguously requires custody by court order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 710.51(6) requires the petitioning parent to have custody "according to a court order" in all cases (including unmarried parents/putative fathers) | Petitioners: statute ambiguous; phrase should apply only to divorced parents, not to unmarried parents/putative fathers | Respondent/State: plain language requires a parent to have custody by court order before stepparent-adoption termination can be sought | Court: Held statute unambiguous as amended; petitioning parent must have custody according to a court order when filing under MCL 710.51(6). |
| Whether In re AJR remains controlling after 2016 amendment | Petitioners: In re AJR should control; amendment did not clearly supersede it | Respondent: 2016 PA 143 changed operative language and superseded In re AJR | Court: 2016 amendment clearly superseded In re AJR; vertical stare decisis does not bind Court of Appeals to AJR on this point. |
| Whether the trial court’s reliance on legislative history was appropriate | Petitioners: legislative history supports broader reading favorable to them | Respondent: legislative history is weak and not controlling | Court: Legislative analyses are of limited value; statutory text controls. |
| Whether petitioners met statutory prerequisites or merits for termination | Petitioners: (alternative) argued merits/clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination and best interests | Respondent: argued ongoing attempts to reestablish contact and pending custody/support claim weigh against termination | Court: Did not reach merits because procedural requirement failed; alternatively trial court would have denied relief on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AJR, 496 Mich 346 (2014) (prior Michigan Supreme Court interpretation requiring sole legal custody before termination under former MCL 710.51(6))
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. City of Lansing, 499 Mich 177 (2016) (analysis when intervening statutory amendments supersede prior Supreme Court decisions)
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (rules of statutory construction; plain meaning controls)
- In re BKD, 246 Mich App 212 (2001) (role of MCL 710.39 in protecting putative fathers in adoption proceedings)
- In re MKK, 286 Mich App 546 (2009) (analysis of putative father rights and adoption procedures)
- In re MGR, 323 Mich App 279 (2018) (procedural interaction between adoption and paternity actions)