In re England
314 Mich. App. 245
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Infant EM (≈2 months) admitted with multiple rib fractures (different healing stages), a healing right tibia fracture, and a chest bruise; treating pediatrician concluded injuries were diagnostic of abuse and occurred in at least two separate incidents.
- Father (respondent) initially denied knowledge, later admitted lifting EM by the legs during a diaper change and squeezing EM after a fall while carrying him in a car seat; he did not seek timely medical care or inform EM’s mother.
- Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree child abuse and received probation; DHHS sought termination of parental rights and the trial court terminated at initial disposition under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (j), and (k)(iii).
- EM is eligible for tribal membership; ICWA and Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) applied, requiring findings that (a) active efforts were made and failed, and (b) beyond a reasonable doubt continued custody would likely cause serious harm.
- Trial court found statutory grounds and best interests satisfied, that active efforts had been made, and—based on expert testimony—that return to father would likely cause serious emotional or physical harm; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination and best interests were proven | DHHS: father caused serious physical harm, risk of future harm, failed services; termination appropriate | Respondent did not contest these findings on appeal | Court: trial court did not clearly err; grounds and best interests supported |
| Whether MCL 712B.15(3) (active-efforts provision) is unconstitutionally vague for lacking a proof standard | DHHS: default clear-and-convincing standard applies by analogy to ICWA precedent | Respondent: provision vague because it sets no evidentiary standard, giving unlimited discretion | Court: statute not void for vagueness; clear-and-convincing standard applies to MCL 712B.15(3) |
| Whether record supports active-efforts finding under MCL 712B.15(3) | DHHS: caseworker and tribal representative conducted and coordinated culturally appropriate services and outreach; evidence shows active efforts | Respondent: challenges nature/adequacy of efforts (implicitly) | Court: no clear error; clear-and-convincing evidence of active efforts existed |
| Whether MCL 712B.15(4) finding (beyond a reasonable doubt risk of serious harm) was supported | DHHS: expert (tribal caseworker + psychologist) testified father poses high risk and should not be around children; evidence beyond reasonable doubt he would harm child | Respondent: attacked expert’s qualification/opinion and trial court’s reliance | Court: trial court did not clearly err; qualified expert testimony and record proved risk beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether preliminary inquiry procedures violated respondent’s rights (Tribal intervention, counsel, cross-examination, jurisdiction transfer) | DHHS: preliminary inquiry is informal; respondent had full rights later in proceedings | Respondent: denied notice, counsel, chance to cross-examine, and to seek tribal transfer at preliminary inquiry | Court: no plain error; respondent not entitled to those protections at preliminary inquiry and had full procedural opportunities later |
Key Cases Cited
- In re JL, 483 Mich 300 (Mich. 2009) (applies clear-and-convincing default standard to ICWA active-efforts determination)
- In re Roe, 281 Mich App 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (held clear-and-convincing standard applies to §1912(d) active-efforts requirement)
- In re Morris, 491 Mich 81 (Mich. 2012) (discusses ICWA purpose to protect Indian families)
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (background on federal concerns prompting ICWA)
- In re Olive/Metts, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (standard that termination must be in child’s best interests)