Court Of Appeals Affirms Termination Of Parental Rights Where Father Failed To Assert Tribal Affiliation Or Rectify Substance-Use Barrier
Unpublished Opinion Released: May 13, 2025 (Maldonado, Cameron, Young)
COA Docket No. 371904
Branch County Circuit Court - Juvenile Division
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights because he failed to assert the child’s Native American or tribal affiliation to the Trial Court and failed to demonstrate that he would be able to rectify his substance-use barrier in a reasonable time considering the child’s age.
Facts: Hanning Minor was born with symptoms of withdrawal. Her mother had tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and marijuana. Upon hospital staff discovering this, the mother was reported to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS petitioned to remove Hanning Minor, noting her history of drug abuse and the prior terminations of her parental rights to two of her four children. However, the mother’s husband was not the father, the respondent-father was. Once his paternity was confirmed, the trial court released Hanning Minor into his care. Four days later, Hanning Minor was removed from the respondent-father's care after he tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and THC. He was then arrested for an outstanding warrant for his methamphetamine use and was sentenced to twelve months of probation. He was later incarcerated after testing positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines again.
DHHS then moved to terminate both parent’s parental rights. The mother’s rights were terminated in the trial court but did not do so for the respondent-father as the trial court felt there was not clear and convincing evidence that he was given an opportunity to rectify his situation, allowing him to regain custody of Hanning Minor. The trial court declined to terminate his rights at the second trial. At the third trial, the respondent-father's rights were terminated. This appeal followed.
Key Appellate Rulings:
When challenging a trial court’s decision under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, the respondent must have asserted the child’s Native American heritage so that a trial court has reason to know of the child’s tribal affiliation.
The respondent-father failed to raise the argument of the child’s Native American heritage in the trial court. The Court reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights, finding none. Under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, it is required that an Indian child's tribe is given notice of any involuntary proceedings seeking the termination of parental rights when the trial court “knows or has reason to know” that a Native American child is involved. Michigan rules require trial courts during preliminary hearings to inquire into whether the child is a member of a Native American tribe or if either parents are. Here, the mother testified that none of Hanning Minor’s family members were part of a Native American Tribe.
The respondent-father had relied on In re IEM has his basis for why the trial court’s decision was erroneous as it was overruled by In re Morris. He at no time asserted that Hanning Minor was a member of a Native American tribe, stating that the lack of inquiry was reason enough under In re IEM to reverse the trial court’s decision. However, In re Morris overruled this as conditional reversal is only required if the trial court fails to provide notice under ICWA despite knowing or having reason to know of the child’s tribal affiliation. Furthermore, the trial court had no reason to know of the child’s Native American heritage.
A year is plenty of time rectify a substance-use barrier to child custody.
The respondent-father challenged one of the three statutory grounds for termination of his parental rights. Because of this, he has abandoned any claim of error as to those two claims. Even if he had succeeded on this claim, he would still not be entitled to relief.
The respondent-father challenges MCL 712A.19b(c)(i) that states that termination of parental right can be brought when the conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and “there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.” The respondent-father was first notified of this case in March of 2023. The trial court declined to terminate his rights two times before ultimately terminating his rights in July of 2024. Despite having a year to rectify his issue, the respondent-father violated his probation, produced and consumed alcohol while incarcerated, tested positive for methamphetamines within a month of his release, and missed half of his drug screenings before his final trial. Furthermore, the child was in foster care for her entire life and was thriving with her foster parents. Given Hanning Minor’s age, it was unlikely that the respondent-father would be able to rectify conditions as he failed to do so as of the date of the final termination trial, which was demonstrative of his inability to recover within a reasonable time frame.
Judge Maldonado’s Concurrence:
Maldonado stresses the importance of following the inquiry requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, emphasizing the potential harm for children by threatening their relationships with their tribe and the potential disruption that could occur if they are later recognized as a Native American under law. The United States has a history of removing Native American children from their homes in favor of non-Indian homes in order to assimilate them into American culture. This practice resulted in the federal law called the Indian Child Welfare Act to be enacted in order to preserve Native American families. The concurrence also notes the importance of preservation as these children are future citizens and voters of these tribes.
It is also noted that there is still a possibility the case will be reversed later. In subsequent proceedings, even if it is at adoption, if the court knows or has reason to know that Hanning Minor is a Native American child, the law requires conditional reversal. Presently, it did not apply as the trial court had no reason to know that a Native American child was involved, even though they failed under ICWA and MIFPA to make an inquiry to the respondent-father.
DHHS, courts, and officers of the courts must follow these laws to the letter in order to provide the highest level of protection for Native American children.
