951 N.W.2d 704
Mich. Ct. App.2020Background
- DHHS petitioned in 2017 after repeated CPS complaints and home visits documenting extreme neglect: infestations, mold, nonfunctional utilities, animal feces, and a child’s mattress saturated with urine; children had poor hygiene, school truancy, and bullying.
- Respondents pleaded to jurisdiction in April 2017; the plea colloquy omitted a specific advisory required by MCR 3.971(B)(4) that the plea could be used in later termination proceedings.
- Children were placed in foster care where both improved markedly; daughter reduced weight, stopped bedwetting, and resisted reunification; son was diagnosed with severe autism and benefitted from specialized foster care.
- Respondents completed some services, gained housing temporarily, but had ongoing mental-health, cognitive, financial, and criminal-justice problems; expert Dr. Strauss testified respondents had poor prognoses and posed a chronic risk of neglect.
- The trial court found statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j), and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests; respondents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy violated MCR 3.971(B)(4) by not advising that the plea could be used in termination proceedings | Omission was harmless; respondents were otherwise informed of rights, reviewed petition and service plan, and would not show prejudice | Failure to advise under MCR 3.971(B)(4) violated due process and rendered plea unknowing; requires reversal | Court: Trial court erred in omitting the MCR 3.971(B)(4) advisory, but error was not plain-prejudicial under Carines; no relief granted |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence (esp. MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) and (c)(ii)) | Evidence (experts, caseworkers, children’s progress/trauma, parents’ instability) met clear-and-convincing standard | Parents argued evidence insufficient and their improvements undermined termination grounds | Court: Sufficient evidence supports termination under (j) and (c)(ii); no clear error |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Children flourished in foster care, need permanency, foster family willing to adopt; parents’ history and prognosis make reunification unsafe | Parents argued existing parent-child bond and changes made during the case weigh against termination | Court: Best-interest factors favor termination (stability, safety, children’s improvement); no clear error |
| Whether the plea-advice error was reviewable given lack of preservation | Relief not warranted because claim unpreserved; review under plain-error standard | Respondents contend due-process error required reversal despite lack of objection | Court: Applied plain-error review; respondents failed to show prejudice or that error undermined fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (establishes plain-error test for unpreserved criminal/constitutional errors)
- In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1 (due-process requirements for plea advisement in child-protective proceedings)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (distinguishes adjudicative and dispositional phases in child-protective cases)
- In re JK, 468 Mich 202 (termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) involves "other" conditions unrelated to adjudication)
- In re Ellis, 294 Mich App 30 (only one statutory ground need be proven to terminate parental rights)
- In re Medina, 317 Mich App 219 (best-interest factors and standard of review in termination cases)