In Re O L Edie Minor, 367329

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed termination petitions regarding both respondent-mother and respondent-father's parental rights to OLE, a minor child born in December 2020.
Respondent-mother and child tested positive for THC at birth; mother had prior terminations of rights to two children and a significant substance abuse history.
Respondent-father became OLE’s legal father in April 2023; the DHHS cited unstable housing and criminal history in the termination petition against him.
The trial court found statutory grounds to terminate mother’s rights, but did not find termination in OLE’s best interests, largely due to the child's bond with mother and improved parental compliance.
The DHHS later sought and was granted withdrawal of the petition against respondent-father after determining he had rectified prior deficiencies, over the Lawyer-Guardian Ad Litem’s (LGAL) objection.
The LGAL appealed both the denial of termination against mother and the withdrawal regarding father.

Issue	LGAL's Argument	DHHS/Respondents’ Argument	Held
Appealability of denial of mother’s termination	LGAL claimed right to appeal under court rules	DHHS argued court rule inapplicable (not an Indian child case, not a final order)	No appeal as of right; Court declined to grant leave
Trial court’s refusal to terminate mother’s rights	Not in child's best interest, error to deny	Mother's compliance, child's placement with father	Court declined to review merits due to ongoing proceedings
Withdrawal of petition to terminate father’s rights	Withdrawal was error; petition was mandatory	DHHS could not substantiate allegations, statute allows DHHS discretion	No requirement to proceed absent all statutory conditions; withdrawal allowed
Procedural due process violation for child	OLE deprived of due process protections	Statute does not create private actionable rights	No due process violation occurred

In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (Mich. 2014) (statutory interpretation and due process standards in parental rights cases)
In re AJR, 342 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (scope of appealable orders in child welfare cases)
Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (court’s discretion to treat an appeal as application for leave)
In re Gach, 315 Mich App 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (due process requirements in parental termination cases)
English v Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich, 263 Mich App 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (issues not properly raised deemed abandoned)
Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp, 281 Mich App 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (requirement for appellate briefing to include argument and citations)