In re AJR
300 Mich. App. 597
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Respondent and AJR’s mother divorced; mother awarded sole physical custody but joint legal custody remained with both parents.
- Petitioner-stepfather (mother’s husband) sought to adopt AJR and petitioned to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 710.51(6).
- Trial court conducted a two‑day evidentiary hearing and terminated respondent’s rights under MCL 710.51(6) based on two findings: (a) failure to provide regular/substantial support for two years, and (b) failure to visit, contact, or communicate for two years.
- Respondent and AJR’s mother’s divorce judgment did not grant sole legal custody to mother; both parents retained joint legal custody.
- Court held that MCL 710.51(6) requires the initiating parent to have sole legal custody; thus termination under 710.51(6) was improper when the initiating parent did not have sole legal custody and the child’s parents had joint legal custody.
- Court reversed, concluding the trial court erred by applying the statute to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 710.51(6) apply when the initiating parent has joint legal custody? | Respondent’s rights terminate if the other parent fails; statute applies. | Rule requires a parent with sole legal custody to initiate termination. | No; the statute requires the initiating parent have sole legal custody. |
| Does the use of 'the parent having legal custody' imply sole custody for termination under 710.51(6)? | Language supports termination. | Language requires sole custody; joint custody prevents termination. | The definite article 'the' contemplates sole custody; termination invalid with joint custody. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paige v Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 (2006) (interpreting 'the' as definite article for sole applicability)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (illustrates distinctions between 'the' and 'a' in statutory interpretation)
- In re Hill, 221 Mich App 683 (1997) (requires both statutory conditions for termination under 710.51(6))
- ISB Sales Co v Dave’s Cakes, 258 Mich App 520 (2003) (notes proviso nature of conditional phrases beginning with 'if')
- Farrington v Total Petroleum, Inc., 442 Mich 201 (1993) (illustrates giving effect to all words/omissions in statute)
- Nuculovic v Hill, 287 Mich App 58 (2010) (discusses preservation and plain-law review)