In re Kanjia
308 Mich. App. 660
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS filed a petition (Nov 29, 2011) seeking removal of a child based primarily on allegations against the mother; respondent father was listed only as the putative father and noted in relation to prior domestic-violence involvement.
- The mother pleaded no contest at adjudication (Jan 20, 2012); the trial court found jurisdiction based on the mother and placed the child with DHS; respondent was not adjudicated and the adjudication order did not name him.
- Despite lack of adjudication, the trial court imposed a parent-agency treatment plan on respondent during dispositional proceedings and later terminated his parental rights (order appealed).
- Respondent appealed; while the appeal was pending, the Michigan Supreme Court decided In re Sanders, which held the one-parent doctrine unconstitutional because it allowed dispositional orders against unadjudicated parents in violation of due process.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether respondent could raise a Sanders challenge on direct appeal and whether Sanders should be applied retroactively to cases pending on direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated respondent's due process under Sanders (one-parent doctrine) | Respondent: Sanders requires individual adjudication of each parent; he was never adjudicated, so termination violated due process | DHS/State: Proceedings followed pre-Sanders practice; initial adjudication based on mother justified dispositional orders over both parents | Held: Termination violated due process under Sanders because respondent was never adjudicated as unfit before dispositional interference |
| Whether a Sanders challenge raised for first time on direct appeal from termination is an impermissible collateral attack on jurisdiction | DHS: General rule bars collateral attack on adjudication after termination when not directly appealed | Respondent: Sanders challenge is a direct due-process attack on dispositional action, not a collateral attack on jurisdiction; many unadjudicated parents lack standing to appeal adjudication | Held: Sanders challenge may be raised on direct appeal from termination; it is a direct attack on the dispositional deprivation of parental rights |
| Whether Sanders should be applied retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal when decided | DHS: Applying Sanders retroactively burdens state reliance on prior law | Respondent: Due-process rule should govern pending appeals; federal retroactivity precedent supports full retroactivity | Held: Sanders given full retroactive effect to all cases pending on direct appeal at time of decision |
| Remedy where Sanders violation found | Respondent: Vacate termination and remand for proceedings consistent with Sanders | DHS: (implicit) follow applicable retroactivity rules and proper procedure | Held: Vacated termination order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Sanders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394; 852 NW2d 524 (2014) (one-parent doctrine unconstitutional; due process requires individual adjudication of parental unfitness)
- In re CR, 250 Mich App 185; 646 NW2d 506 (2002) (Michigan precedent applying one-parent doctrine; overruled by Sanders)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural standard for appellate counsel motion to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (federal rule application is fully retroactive to cases on direct review)