In re Blakeman
326 Mich. App. 318
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Father was found in a juvenile/probate adjudicative bench trial to have caused a nonaccidental, life‑threatening skull fracture to an unrelated toddler who had been babysat in the family home; the court assumed jurisdiction over the parents' four children.
- At trial the father waived Miranda/Fifth Amendment rights and testified denying responsibility; the court nonetheless found he caused the injury and ordered him out of the home with only supervised visitation.
- The father completed court‑ordered services (psychological evaluation, therapy, parenting classes); DHHS and the therapist repeatedly recommended reunification and unsupervised residence with continued services.
- The trial court refused to allow reunification because the father would not admit responsibility for the toddler’s injury; the court required an admission in therapy as a condition of returning home.
- Father appealed, arguing the requirement to admit criminal conduct as a condition of reunification violated his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self‑incrimination; the Court of Appeals agreed, vacated the dispositional order, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditioning reunification on an admission of criminal child abuse violates the Fifth Amendment | DHHS/APA argued reunification depends on parent accepting responsibility; adverse inference or denial may justify continued restriction | Father argued being forced to admit criminal wrongdoing to regain custody compels self‑incrimination and violates Fifth Amendment | Court held conditioning reunification on an admission of criminal abuse violates the Fifth Amendment and was unconstitutional compulsion; vacated and remanded |
| Whether a prior voluntary trial testimony waives Fifth Amendment protection in subsequent dispositional hearings | APA suggested prior testimony reduces privilege and supports using father’s denial against him | Father argued voluntary testimony in one proceeding does not forfeit the right to remain silent in later stages | Court held waiver in one proceeding does not eliminate Fifth Amendment protection at later stages; compulsion still present |
| Whether the penalty for refusing to admit (loss of residence/unsupervised custody and risk of termination) is coercive enough to violate the privilege | State argued supervision/continued proceedings are proper protective measures, not unconstitutional coercion | Father argued the threatened loss of parental rights is a severe penalty forcing self‑incrimination | Court held the threatened loss of custody and likely termination constituted a severe penalty sufficient to compel self‑incrimination |
| Whether the prosecutor had standing to appear in the child protective proceeding (guidance on remand) | APA participated and opposed reunification; claimed appearance as legal consultant | DHHS disputed prosecutor represented the agency; record unclear | Court instructed remand court to determine prosecutor's standing to participate going forward (whether appointed as legal consultant or otherwise) |
Key Cases Cited
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (Fifth Amendment privilege applies to states) (establishes incorporation of privilege)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (whether rehabilitation program requirements and penalties for nonparticipation create unconstitutional compulsion)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (waiver under threat of substantial economic sanction is involuntary)
- Slochower v. Bd. of Higher Ed. of New York City, 350 U.S. 551 (1956) (conditioning employment on waiver of privilege violates due process)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) (adverse inferences allowed in civil contexts when privilege is asserted)
- In re Stricklin, 148 Mich. App. 659 (1986) (Michigan Court of Appeals on Fifth Amendment compulsion analysis in child protective proceedings)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (factors trial court must consider at review hearings: compliance with service plan and benefit from services)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (2014) (deference and standards for dispositional orders in child protective matters)