853 N.W.2d 402
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS petitioned January 11, 2012 to assume jurisdiction over three children due to respondent's heroin use and domestic violence exposure, alleging an unsafe home.
- Preliminary hearing January 13, 2012 placed children under DHS supervision with mediation ordered.
- February 28, 2012 mediation produced an agreement: respondent would plead to certain petition paragraphs to confer jurisdiction; adjudication would be held in abeyance for six months with services and supervised visitation.
- Trial court accepted mediation and adopted the agreement as an order on February 28, 2012.
- Responses to services in 2012 included ongoing but limited participation; multiple dispositional reviews occurred with respondent absent but counsel present.
- January 31, 2013 dispositional review noted reunification no longer viable and indicated court could accept respondent’s plea and take jurisdiction; February 4, 2013 order formally took jurisdiction and allowed filing of a supplemental petition for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent's challenge to the adjudication is collateral attack | Respondent’s attack is collateral; cannot collaterally attack adjudication after termination | DHS argues adjudication attack is permissible as a direct appeal due to initial disposition following mediation | Collateral attack barred; affirmed termination |
| Whether termination occurred at the initial disposition so challenge was direct | Termination occurred at initial dispositional hearing following mediation | Only collateral attack allowed if initial disposition not properly noticed or scheduled | February 4, 2013 order was initial disposition; challenge should have been direct, but majority affirms as collateral attack not considered on merits |
| Whether mediation-based plea procedures complied with due process and court rules to confer jurisdiction | Mediation substitute bypassed due process protections; plea not knowingly/voluntarily or accurately taken | Mediation agreement and plea were valid to confer jurisdiction under MCR 3.971; court properly exercised jurisdiction | Majority finds mediation-based plea valid and jurisdiction properly exercised, so appealable order preserved; collateral attack rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (1993) (jurisdictional framework and preliminary hearing standards in child protection proceedings)
- In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662 (2008) (adjudication collateral attack rules; timing of appeals in disposition orders)
- In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668 (2005) (collateral attack limitations on adjudication following termination)
- In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120 (2011) (timing and sequencing of adjudication and dispositional orders; appeal rights)