in Re J Ferranti Minor, 934 N.W.2d 610

Background

JF, born 2003, has spina bifida and neurogenic bladder requiring lifelong medical care; Department petitioned in 2015 alleging missed medical care/prescription refills and hazardous, unhygienic home conditions.
Court placed JF in foster care; at a December 2015 preadjudication conference respondents admitted failing to refill several prescriptions and the court exercised jurisdiction based on their pleas.
Trial court accepted respondents’ pleas without advising them of rights or plea consequences as required by MCR 3.971, adopted a family treatment plan, and later authorized termination proceedings.
During the termination process the judge visited the home (unrecorded, counsel not allowed to address the court during the visit) and conducted an unrecorded in‑camera interview of JF.
The trial court terminated parental rights in 2017; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on In re Hatcher to bar post‑termination review of adjudicative errors.
Michigan Supreme Court reversed: overruled Hatcher, held unadvised pleas required vacatur of adjudication, and ruled unrecorded in‑camera child interviews in termination proceedings violate due process; remanded for new proceedings before a different judge.

Issues

Issue	Department/Prosecution Argument	Respondents' Argument	Held
Whether Hatcher bars appellate review of adjudication errors raised after termination	Hatcher permits barring collateral attack; adjudication errors must be raised earlier (initial dispositional order)	Hatcher mischaracterizes child protective proceedings as two separate actions; adjudication error review is allowed on termination appeal	Overruled Hatcher; an adjudicative error on appeal from termination is not a collateral attack and may be reviewed (plain‑error standard when unpreserved)
Standard of review for unpreserved adjudication defects (plea advisals)	If unpreserved, apply plain‑error review and show no prejudice because evidence could have supported adjudication	Court’s failure to advise under MCR 3.971 deprived respondents of fundamental rights; that defect is plain and affected substantial rights	Applied plain‑error test; found the court plainly erred, the error affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings — adjudication vacated
Validity of unrecorded, in‑camera interview of the child in termination proceedings	Department argued parties acquiesced / waived objection; interview permissible or harmless	Respondents argued due‑process violated; lack of recording and cross‑examination prejudiced parental rights	Use of unrecorded, in‑camera interviews in termination proceedings violates parents’ due process rights; respondents did not waive the right to a proper process; remand required before a different judge
Trial judge’s unrecorded home visit	Department: visit did not prejudice proceedings; evidence otherwise supported findings	Respondents: visit outside applicable rules, counsel sidelined, prejudiced ability to challenge facts	Home visit was error (trial court should not rely on unrecorded, private inspection), but Court of Appeals’ harmless‑error conclusion accepted in part; primary reversible errors were pleas and in‑camera interview

Key Cases Cited

In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (1993) (previously barred raising adjudicative errors on appeal from termination; overruled)
Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v. Fredrick, 271 Mich 538 (1935) (explains collateral‑attack rule limiting postjudgment challenges)
In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014) (describes adjudicative vs. dispositional phases and due‑process protections in juvenile cases)
In re Wangler, 498 Mich 911 (2015) (trial court violated MCR plea procedures; supports requiring knowing, voluntary pleas)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain‑error test for unpreserved appellate claims)
In re HRC, 286 Mich App 444 (2009) (Court of Appeals held unrecorded, in‑camera interviews in termination proceedings violate due process)
Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich 97 (1958) (historical collateral‑attack anomaly criticized in Hatcher)