Court Of Appeals Finds Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over Father In Termination Proceeding
Opinion Published: June 3, 2025
Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 369324; 369325
Wayne County Circuit Court, Family Division
Panel: Mariani, Riordan, Feeney.
Author: Riordan
Holding: Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.
Facts: In September 2022, the petitioner-guardians filed a permanent custody petition pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(6)(A)-(B). Petitioners listed the respondent-mother's husband rather than the child’s biological father. Unbeknownst to the petitioners, Wayne Probate Court entered an order revoking the paternity of respondent-mother’s husband regarding four of respondent-mother’s children, including CSA, and vacated all orders of filiation and child support, because the respondent-mother’s husband was not the biological father. In February 2023, the trial court dismissed petitioners’ permanent custody petition because the respondent-mother’s husband was improperly listed as CSA’s father, and no notice had been submitted to the respondent-father by the trial court or the probate court. The trial court ordered that the petitioners to list CSA’s biological father so as to give him proper notice. Respondent-father's paternity was established in September 2023.
On April 19, 2023, the probate court entered an order granting the petitioners the authority to file a petition for the adoption of CSA. On May 15, 2023, petitioners filed a permanent custody petition requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CSA pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(6)(A) and (B),6 and enter an order terminating respondents’ parental rights to CSA under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f). The petition correctly listed both respondents as the parents of CSA. On May 18, 2023, the trial court authorized the petition.
At the evidentiary hearing, the referee determined that (1) CSA was within the court’s jurisdiction, (2) a statutory ground for termination was established pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(f), and (3) it was in CSA’s best interests to terminate respondents’ parental rights. The referee opined that respondents failed or neglected to provide regular and substantial support for CSA for a period of two years or more before the filing of the petition and that respondents, having the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with CSA, regularly and substantially failed or neglected, without good cause, to do so for a period of two years or more before the filing of the petition. Finally, the referee found that it was in CSA’s best interests to terminate respondents’ parental rights because he was thriving under petitioners’ care and custody, he had all of his needs met, and he stated that he wanted to be adopted by petitioners. On November 21, 2023, the trial court entered an order terminating respondents’ parental rights. Respondents appealed.
Key Appellate Rulings:
A putative father’s actions or inactions cannot be considered for purposes of jurisdiction over a child.
The Court of Appeals noted that in In re Long, 326 Mich App 455, 464; 927 NW2d 724 (2018), it is stated that “a putative father does not qualify as a father or parent for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in child protective proceedings.” As an affidavit of parentage had not been filed, respondent-father was CSA’s putative father when the petitioners filed the subject petition requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CSA. The present case and In re Long mirror each other as the respondent-fathers were not determined to be the children’s legal father until after the petition was originally filed. The Court of Appeals in In re Long stated, “that to rely on a putative father’s action or inaction in the two years or more preceding the filing of a petition when considering whether to exercise jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(6) is violative of due process.”
The Court of Appeals then compared the present case to In re Knipp, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 368780); slip op at 4-6 which stated that the trial court may consider a putative father’s conduct. The Court of Appeals in the present case differentiated this case by stating that In re Knipp did not address the threshold issue of jurisdiction but rather may be considered for the purposes of statutory grounds for termination. Because respondent-mother's husband had a legal obligation to CSA and not respondent-father until February 2022 and respondent-father did not perfect his paternity until after the subject petition had been filed, the trial court erred by exercising its jurisdiction over respondent-father. Due to this error, the Court of Appeals also concluded that the trial court could not terminate respondent-father's parental rights nor was the trial court authorized to consider whether termination was in CSA’s best interests.
