in Re Williams Minors
335932
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Two children (JJW and ELW), eligible for Sault Ste. Marie Tribe membership, were removed for parental substance abuse in 2012 and placed with petitioning foster parents (petitioners) where they lived ~4 years.
- In May 2015 the biological parents executed out-of-court releases/consents; Macomb Circuit Court later terminated parental rights and committed the children to the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI); MCI (superintendent) consented to adoption by petitioners.
- Oakland Circuit Court approved placement with petitioners (Feb 2, 2016). After that, the child-placing agency (Hands Across the Water, HAW) and the Tribe withdrew their prior consent and asked the court to rescind placement, citing safety concerns and new allegations.
- Oakland Circuit Court rescinded the placement order and denied the adoption, reasoning that under ICWA/MIFPA an agency or tribe could withdraw consent before a final adoption decree.
- Macomb Circuit Court refused the biological father’s later motion to withdraw his release and to have the children returned, concluding statutory and procedural rules did not permit his withdrawal.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed denial of father’s withdrawal motion; vacated Oakland’s rescission of placement; reversed denial of adoption and remanded for factual findings on best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAW or the Tribe could withdraw consent after the court entered an order terminating MCI’s rights and placing children for adoption | HAW/Tribe: ICWA/MIFPA allow withdrawal of consent before final adoption; tribe has parens patriae interest | Petitioners: Once court entered placement/termination order (MCL 710.51(3)), consent cannot be withdrawn | Held: Neither ICWA nor MIFPA permit HAW or the Tribe to rescind placement after the placement order; MCL 710.51(3) controls |
| Whether MCI (superintendent) retained authority to withdraw consent after the placement order | HAW/Tribe: agency’s later concerns justify withdrawal | Petitioners: MCI’s authority ended when court terminated its rights and ordered placement | Held: MCI lost authority to withdraw consent after the court’s placement/termination order |
| Whether the Tribe’s standing/placement preferences permitted rescission or required different placement after placement order | Tribe: parens patriae standing and ICWA placement preferences support intervention and withdrawal | Petitioners: Standing does not create statutory right to withdraw; placement-preference rules apply only until placement and are inapplicable absent an alternative party seeking adoption | Held: Tribe had standing but that does not confer power to withdraw consent; ICWA/MIFPA placement preferences did not justify rescission post-placement |
| Whether biological father could withdraw his out-of-court release and obtain return of children | Father: MIFPA/ICWA allow withdrawal of consent before final adoption | State/children: Father executed a release during an in-court child-protective proceeding and did not meet MIFPA(1) consent-form requirements or statutory timing for revocation | Held: Father cannot withdraw release; MIFPA, ICWA, and Adoption Code do not permit withdrawal under facts here; Macomb court properly denied motion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kiogima, 189 Mich. App. 6 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (ICWA 1913(c) interpreted to allow withdrawal of consent to termination or to adopt only until final decree of that specific proceeding)
- Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D.S.D. 2014) (tribal parens patriae standing to vindicate tribe’s interests in Indian child placements)
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (U.S. 2013) (ICWA placement preferences inapplicable where no alternative preferred party has sought adoption)
- In re MD, 110 Wash. App. 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses limits on post-termination withdrawal of release in child-placement context)