Court Of Appeals Reverses Order Terminating Father’s Parental Rights After DHHS Failed To Implement Case Service Plan
COA Opinion Published: May 14, 2025 (O’Brien, Kelly, Borrello)
COA Docket No. 371544
Wayne County Circuit Court
Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order terminating Respondent's parental rights to minor child GM. The Court reasoned that Petitioner, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), failed to create and implement a case service plan for Respondent as required by MCL 712A.18f. The Court remanded the case with instructions to create and implement a case service plan that reasonably accommodates Respondent’s disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Facts: Petitioner filed a petition to remove GM and five of his siblings from the respondent’s care in March 2022. The petition alleged that Respondent, GM's legal father, lived in Mexico, had not cared for GM since he was "younger," and had not provided financial or material support for GM or supervision for GM since 2016. The petition further alleged that Respondent had a criminal history. A Child Protective Services (CPS) worker spoke to Respondent in early 2022. During this conversation, Respondent confirmed he had a Michigan address and would be willing to care for GM if the child was removed from his mother's care. However, after filing the petition, the CPS worker could no longer contact Respondent and could not make plans for him to care for GM.
Petitioner contacted Respondent again in January 2023 and Respondent stated he was not ready to participate in a case service plan. Respondent declined to participate in a case service plan again in March 2023. In September 2023, Petitioner filed a supplemental petition to terminate Respondent's parental rights to GM on the basis of abandonment. The petition stated that Respondent did not maintain contact with the foster care worker, did not appear at Petitioner's office or attend any visits with GM, and failed to benefit from court-ordered services, among other allegations.
The trial court held a bench trial and hearing on statutory grounds for termination in January 2024. A foster-care worker testified that Respondent declined visitation time with GM before being incarcerated in December 2023, and GM was to be placed with his maternal aunt. The foster-care worker further testified that Respondent had not been given a case service plan before his incarceration and denied knowing if services were available to Respondent while he was in prison. The trial court determined that statutory grounds existed for the termination of Respondent’s parental rights to GM.
In April 2024, the trial court held a best-interests hearing where the same foster-care worker testified, along with Respondent and several members of Respondent's family. Respondent testified that he wanted to take care of his outstanding warrants and complete his prison time before getting custody of GM. He also stated he would participate in any parenting programs that Petitioner recommended to get custody of GM upon his release from prison. The foster-care worker testified that she was "unable to do anything with a treatment plan" due to Respondent's incarceration. The foster-care worker admitted she did not learn whether any programs were available at the prison for Respondent. The trial court determined that termination of Respondent's parental rights was in GM's best interests, despite GM being placed with a relative.
Key Appellate Ruling:
The trial court erred by determining that Petitioner made reasonable efforts toward reunifying Respondent and GM. In re Frey sets the standard for arguments regarding reunification efforts. A Respondent must object to the services when offered to maintain an argument regarding reasonable reunification efforts. In the present case, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Petitioner never created a case service plan for Respondent, so Respondent never had the opportunity to object to any services because they were not offered to him. This was established at the statutory grounds hearing, where the foster-care worker confirmed that Respondent was not given a case service plan and stated she did not know whether Respondent could participate in services while incarcerated.
Furthermore, the Court found the trial court did not address reasonable efforts when it found statutory grounds to terminate Respondent's parental rights. Yet in its order terminating such rights, the Court noted the trial court checked a box indicating reasonable efforts were made to preserve and unify the family. The Court cited In re Atchley, stating, "While the [petitioner] has a responsibility to expend reasonable efforts to provide services to secure reunification, there exists a commensurate responsibility on the part of Respondents to participate in the services that are offered." Here, Petitioner failed to prepare a service plan and, subsequently, the trial court failed to adopt a service plan for Respondent. According to the Court, clearly Respondent had not "failed to benefit from his court ordered services" as alleged in Petitioner's supplemental petition, as no services were ever offered to him.
Moreover, the foster-care worker at the best-interests hearing admitted she did not investigate what services, if any, were available to Respondent during his incarceration. Meanwhile, Respondent testified that he would participate in any necessary program during his incarceration to get custody of GM upon his release. While Respondent was willing and able to put forth the effort to comply with a service plan, Petitioner clearly failed in its statutory duty under MCL 712A.18f to prepare a case service plan as part of its reasonable reunification efforts.
