In re Johnson
305 Mich. App. 328
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Child-protection proceedings resulted in termination of respondent mother’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (h); mother appealed.
- At the preliminary hearing, the father stated his deceased grandmothers were "full-blooded" Native Americans; he did not know their tribe.
- The trial court ordered the DHS caseworker to investigate/notify as to possible Native American heritage; subsequent DHS case service plans stated no Native American heritage identified.
- The termination order did not mark the child as an American Indian child, and the record contains no proof that notice under 25 U.S.C. §1912(a) was sent.
- Mother argued the court failed to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) notice requirements; the trial court found termination was in the child’s best interests because mother was incarcerated and the child was bonded to foster mother.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA notice was required after father’s statement of Native ancestry | Father’s statement of Native grandmothers triggered ICWA notice requirement; court must ensure notice was sent | DHS/court treated child as not Indian and did not send notice; no record of notice | Court conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA-notice compliance because father's statement sufficed to trigger notice per Morris standard |
| Adequacy of DHS inquiry/documentation regarding Native heritage | DHS failed to document or explain its investigation despite court order to inquire | DHS asserted the service plans reflected no identified Native heritage (but record lacked explanation) | Remand ordered so court can either review/inquire or order ICWA notice if any possibility exists the child is Indian |
| Remedy for ICWA-notice violation | Mother sought reversal of termination for lack of ICWA notice | Petitioner conceded conditional reversal appropriate to resolve ICWA issue | Court applied Morris remedy: conditional reversal and remand to ensure proper notice; if tribes confirm ICWA applies, termination vacated and proceedings must restart |
| Whether termination was in child's best interests | Mother argued termination inappropriate | Petitioner argued child needed permanence; mother incarcerated long-term | Trial court’s best-interests finding was not clearly erroneous; court affirmed that termination served child’s need for permanence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morris, 491 Mich 81 (Mich. 2012) (establishes cautionary standard triggering 25 U.S.C. §1912(a) notice and mandates documentary proof; prescribes conditional reversal remedy)
- In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341 (Mich. 2000) (standards for reviewing best-interest findings in termination cases)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (Mich. 2010) (clarifies clearly erroneous standard for factfinding)
- In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (child’s need for permanence is a proper consideration)
- In re Olive/Metts Minors, 297 Mich App 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (parenting ability and stability relevant to best-interest analysis)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (burden and standard for best-interest determination)