In re Jones
316 Mich. App. 110
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother’s parental rights to two children (SL and CJ) were terminated; she appeals the terminations.
- Mother and CJ’s father gave inconsistent statements that CJ’s father “might be Cherokee” or have Native American heritage; father was uncooperative and later had his rights terminated.
- DHHS and the trial court investigated Native American heritage: DHHS sent limited information to the BIA/Secretary, which replied that information was insufficient to determine tribal affiliation.
- The record contains no evidence that DHHS or the court sent written notice to the Cherokee tribe or to any tribes in Kalamazoo County as required by MIFPA, nor that they exercised due diligence to contact Cherokee specifically.
- The trial court found termination was in the children’s best interests due to mother’s long-standing inability to provide suitable housing, finances, and safety, and history of exposing children to inappropriate persons.
- The appellate court affirmed termination as to SL, but conditionally reversed and remanded as to CJ for ICWA/MIFPA notice compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHHS/Petitioner) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA/MIFPA notice was triggered for CJ | DHHS argued notice to BIA/Secretary was sufficient or that ICWA/MIFPA obligations were met | Mother argued DHHS and court failed to give required tribal notice and to sufficiently investigate CJ’s possible Indian status | Notice was triggered: information that father "might be Cherokee" required tribal notice under 25 U.S.C. §1912(a) and MCL 712B.9(1); remand required for proper notice to Cherokee and local tribes |
| Whether DHHS satisfied MIFPA’s duty to make an initial determination and exercise due diligence under MCL 712B.9(3) | DHHS did not meaningfully argue compliance on appeal | Mother argued DHHS failed to exercise due diligence to contact Cherokee or tribes in Kalamazoo County in writing | DHHS failed to meet MCL 712B.9(3); remand ordered to contact Cherokee and any tribes in the county |
| Whether termination was supported by statutory grounds | DHHS relied on multiple statutory grounds and asserted only one is necessary | Mother did not directly contest statutory grounds on appeal | Appellate court noted only one ground need be proven and did not disturb statutory findings supporting termination |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | DHHS argued termination was necessary for children’s safety, permanency, and stability | Mother argued termination was not in children’s best interests | Court found no clear error: mother’s failure to secure housing, finances, address safety concerns, and provide stability supported best-interests finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Morris, 491 Mich 81 (Mich. 2012) (broad construction of "reason to know" ICWA notice trigger)
- In re Johnson, 305 Mich App 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (ICWA notice triggered by indicia of Native ancestry in grandparents)
- In re England, 314 Mich App 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (discussion of MIFPA protections and ICWA relationship)
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (best-interests standard and burden of proof for termination)