915 N.W.2d 328
Mich.2018Background
- Jack Williams, an enrolled member of the Sault Tribe, executed releases under MCL 710.28 and MCL 710.29 (Adoption Code) consenting to termination of his parental rights for the purpose of adoption while child-protective proceedings were pending. DHHS did not object and the court accepted the releases.
- The foster parents petitioned to adopt; the Sault Tribe intervened and the trial court denied that adoption petition due to tribal/ICWA/MIFPA concerns; children were placed with different foster parents.
- Before any final adoption order entered, Williams filed to withdraw his consent under MCL 712B.13(3) (MIFPA). The trial court denied the withdrawal because Williams released the children to DHHS rather than a specific adoptive parent.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed but on alternative grounds: (1) Williams did not execute the separate MIFPA consent form required by MCL 712B.13(1), and (2) because the case arose during a child-protective proceeding governed by MCL 712B.15, MCL 712B.13 withdrawal did not apply.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review and held that MCL 712B.13(3) permits a parent who executed a release under §§28–29 to withdraw that consent any time before entry of a final adoption order; Williams was therefore entitled to withdraw his consent. The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent who executed a release under §§28–29 during child-protective proceedings may withdraw consent under MCL 712B.13(3) before a final adoption order | Williams: MCL 712B.13(3) plainly allows withdrawal any time prior to a final adoption order; adoption was not finalized, so withdrawal permitted | DHHS/trial court: Release to DHHS (not a specific parent) and involvement of child-protective proceedings bars withdrawal; MCL 712B.15 controls and provides no withdrawal remedy | Court: Granted withdrawal right under MCL 712B.13(3); executing a §28–29 release qualifies and MCL 712B.13 and MCL 712B.15 operate together — MIFPA withdrawal applies and MCL 712B.15 governs subsequent proceedings |
| Whether MCL 712B.13(1) requires a separate, additional MIFPA consent form apart from the Adoption Code release | Williams: No separate form required; the SCAO "Release of Indian Child by Parent" combines Adoption Code release and MIFPA requirements | Court of Appeals: MCL 712B.13(1) requires a distinct MIFPA consent in addition to the Adoption Code release | Court: Rejected the need for a separate consent form; the MIFPA consent ‘‘conjoins’’ with the §28–29 release (SCAO Indian-child release form satisfies the statute) |
| Whether execution by a referee (not a judge) or failures to use the Indian-child SCAO form negate withdrawal rights | Williams: (argued improper consent process) | DHHS: procedural deficiencies undermine claimed protections | Court: Assumed without deciding that consent was valid; even if procedural mistakes occurred, those errors do not deprive Williams of statutory withdrawal rights |
| Effect of withdrawal on subsequent termination proceedings | Williams: Withdrawal should return child to pre-consent status; does not immunize state from refiling termination | DHHS: Withdrawal could be limited or precluded because of proceeding context | Court: Withdrawal returns child to pre-consent placement (here, foster care) and MCL 712B.15 protections resume; DHHS may refile termination under MCL 712B.15 with its heightened burdens |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williams, 320 Mich. App. 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (Court of Appeals decision reviewed and reversed on other grounds)
- In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394 (Mich. 2014) (standard: de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury, 477 Mich. 170 (Mich. 2007) (unambiguous statutory language is enforced as written)
- Lansing Mayor v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 470 Mich. 154 (Mich. 2004) (interpretation of "subject to" and reading statutes to work together)
- In re England, 314 Mich. App. 245 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing ICWA purpose to protect and preserve Indian families)
- In re Kiogima, 189 Mich. App. 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (ICWA withdrawal-of-consent principle)