909 N.W.2d 260
Mich.2018Background
- In May 2013 DHHS removed the respondent-mother's children and an August 2013 initial disposition hearing followed where the mother entered pleas admitting or pleading no contest to several allegations.
- The trial court accepted defective pleas because it failed to advise the mother as required by MCR 3.971(B), including that the plea could be used later in a termination proceeding.
- The court thereafter assumed jurisdiction, adopted DHHS's service plan, and held review hearings over the next ~2.5 years; in 2016 DHHS moved to terminate parental rights and the trial court terminated them.
- On appeal the mother argued the defective plea deprived the court of jurisdiction to later terminate her rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying this Court's collateral bar rule decision in In re Hatcher.
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal (no majority). Justice McCormack (joined by two other justices) dissented, arguing Hatcher was wrongly decided or at least must yield to due process when termination is sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defective adjudication plea that omitted MCR 3.971(B) warnings deprives the court of jurisdiction to terminate parental rights | Respondent: defective plea meant the court never validly assumed jurisdiction and the termination must be vacated | DHHS: the mother waived or is precluded from raising the defect after the fact under the collateral bar rule | Court of Appeals affirmed termination; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal (no majority). Justice McCormack would grant leave and find the defective plea undermines jurisdiction or requires relief. |
| Whether the collateral bar rule bars a parent from raising adjudication-phase errors only at the end of the child-protective proceeding | Respondent: collateral-bar application is inappropriate within a single continuous child-protective proceeding; notice and procedural safeguards don’t make immediate interlocutory appeal realistic | DHHS: parent must challenge errors promptly; Hatcher controls and bars later attack | Lower courts applied Hatcher; Michigan Supreme Court denied leave. Justice McCormack would overrule Hatcher or limit it where due process requires review. |
| Whether due process requires an exception to Hatcher in termination cases | Respondent: termination of parental rights is a profound liberty deprivation requiring robust review; due process should permit challenge to a fundamentally defective plea even if not appealed earlier | DHHS: reliance on finality and existing collateral-attack doctrine to promote efficiency and finality | Supreme Court denied leave; dissent argues due process overrides Hatcher and that Hatcher’s intraproceeding collateral-bar approach is incompatible with juvenile process and parental-rights protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich. 426 (1993) (applied collateral bar rule to child-protective proceedings)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (2014) (describing adjudication and disposition phases of juvenile proceedings)
- In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928 (2009) (child-protective action is a single continuous proceeding; remedial relief for plea defects)
- Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich. 538 (1935) (classic collateral-attack context involving challenge to earlier final judgment)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142 (2010) (reversal where court failed to facilitate parent’s involvement during proceedings)
- In re Mitchell, 485 Mich. 922 (2009) (reversal/remand where plea notice defects occurred)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (recognition of parental liberty interest)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened due process protections in parental termination proceedings)