in Re J Thompson Minor
333294
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Mother previously had parental rights to two older children terminated after infant siblings died in 2006 and 2013 from unsafe sleeping conditions; she concealed a subsequent pregnancy.
- DHHS filed a petition on JT’s birth (Nov 15, 2014) seeking both jurisdiction over JT and termination of mother’s parental rights; JT was placed with unrelated foster care.
- On Jan 23, 2015 the court received testimony from CPS, the foster-care worker, and the mother in a single hearing session.
- The parties’ closing arguments and the court’s findings focused on termination grounds and best interests; the court concluded termination by clear and convincing evidence.
- Only after announcing termination did the court state it would take jurisdiction over JT (finding jurisdiction by a preponderance after the termination decision).
- The mother appealed, arguing the court improperly failed to adjudicate jurisdiction before disposition/termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may terminate parental rights at the initial hearing without first adjudicating jurisdiction | DHHS: Termination was proper because statutory termination grounds were proved and initial disposition may include termination | Mother: Court failed to conduct an adjudicative phase; jurisdiction must be found before disposition or termination | Court vacated adjudicative and termination orders and remanded, holding the court must adjudicate jurisdiction before disposition/termination |
| Whether an adjudicative trial or plea is required before initial disposition | DHHS: Evidence presented in the single hearing sufficed for both purposes | Mother: No plea or adjudicative trial occurred; procedural rules require separate adjudication or plea | Court: Adjudication is required (plea or trial); the record lacked an adjudicative finding made before disposition, so procedure was defective |
| Whether termination can be merged with adjudication if facts are presented in one session | DHHS: The court can conduct adjudicative and dispositional matters in the same sitting if standards are met | Mother: The court reversed the order (disposed before adjudicating) which is procedurally improper | Court: The phases may be consecutive in a single sitting, but adjudicative finding must precede disposition; here the court effectively placed disposition before adjudication |
| Need to reach other appellate issues given procedural defect | DHHS: Other claims need review if termination stands | Mother: Primary relief is vacatur and remand for correct procedure | Court: Vacatur and remand warranted; other issues need not be reached |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AMAC, 269 Mich. App. 533 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishing adjudicative and dispositional phases; termination at initial disposition requires prior adjudication)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. App. 394 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (explaining plea or trial is required to adjudicate jurisdiction)