in Re I M Long Minor
326 Mich. App. 455
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Minor I.M.L. was living with maternal grandmother (petitioner/guardian) since 2012; mother had left the child in grandmother’s custody.
- In 2016 petitioner filed to terminate parental rights of the mother and the then-unknown father; respondent was a putative father at filing.
- Respondent started a paternity action in 2015 but it was dismissed when he was incarcerated; he completed an acknowledgement of parentage on September 7, 2017 (and DNA testing later confirmed paternity).
- Trial court issued an adjudication order in January 2018 finding jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) and (b)(6); in May 2018 it terminated respondent-father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f),(g),(h),(j).
- Respondent appealed, challenging the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction under (b)(2) and (b)(6). The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the termination order, remanding for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) (child’s home unfit due to parental conduct) | Petitioner argued respondent’s conduct/support history made the child’s environment unfit | Respondent argued the child lived with the guardian, not him, and no allegation that guardian’s home was unfit | Reversed: No jurisdiction under (b)(2) because at filing the child lived with guardian and no allegation that guardian’s home was unfit |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(6) (guardian in place and parent failed to support/contact for 2+ years) | Petitioner relied on father’s past inaction to satisfy the 2-year support/contact failure prong | Respondent argued he was only a putative father at filing and thus had no legal duties during the 2-year period | Reversed: No jurisdiction under (b)(6) because respondent was only a putative father when the petition was filed and therefore not a "parent" for (b)(6) purposes; relying on pre-filiation conduct violates due process |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014) (distinguishes adjudicative and dispositional phases and requires specific adjudication for each parent)
- In re Brock, 442 Mich 101 (1993) (jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence)
- In re MU, 264 Mich App 270 (2004) (trial court must examine the child’s situation at the time the petition was filed)
- In re LE, 278 Mich App 1 (2008) (discussed by trial court but Court of Appeals here rejected its relevance and reliance)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 260 Mich App 315 (2004) (orders entered without proper jurisdiction are void ab initio)