in Re montgomery/crawford Minors, 336635

Children were removed from respondent-mother’s care in June 2015 after she admitted at a pretrial hearing to using amphetamines, methamphetamine, and THC while the sole caregiver. The court exercised jurisdiction and a service plan was provided.
After more than a year without reunification progress, DHHS filed a petition seeking termination of respondent’s parental rights.
On the day of the termination hearing in December 2016, respondent voluntarily consented to termination, acknowledging statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the trial court entered an order terminating her rights.
On appeal, respondent challenged the trial court’s earlier exercise of jurisdiction based on her plea; the court treated this as a collateral attack and declined to address it because she failed to timely appeal the jurisdictional decision.
Both DHHS and the trial court failed to satisfy ICWA and MIFPA notice and recordkeeping requirements after family members identified possible tribal affiliations (Blackfeet, Passamaquoddy, Cherokee); the appellate court found the record insufficient to show proper notice to the identified tribes.
The Court conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with ICWA/MIFPA notice procedures and directed the trial court to follow remand procedures from In re Morris.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent may challenge jurisdiction on appeal from termination	Respondent: trial court lacked factual basis connecting her drug use to care of children, so jurisdiction was improper	DHHS/Trial court: jurisdiction challenge is untimely because respondent did not directly appeal the jurisdictional ruling	Court: Jurisdictional challenge is an impermissible collateral attack and is forfeited for failing to appeal earlier; moreover, respondent’s plea would have supported jurisdiction if considered
Whether ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements were satisfied	Respondent: DHHS/trial court failed to provide required notice to identified tribes and failed to maintain notice records	DHHS: conceded ICWA/MIFPA noncompliance in part; attempted contact with BIA and some tribes but record lacks required notices and copies	Court: Reversed conditionally and remanded because record does not show required tribal notice (particularly to Passamaquoddy and Blackfeet) and lacks copies of notices sent (including regarding Cherokee heritage); ordered compliance and remand procedures from In re Morris

In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662 (cites limitation on collateral attacks to jurisdictional orders)
In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (jurisdictional appeal requirements)
In re England, 314 Mich App 245 (ICWA/MIFPA protections and applicability)
In re Morris, 491 Mich 81 (standard for "reason to know" and remand procedures for ICWA/MIFPA notice failures)
In re Jones, 316 Mich App 110 (notice must be sent to specifically identified tribe, not just BIA)