DHHS Made No Efforts Toward Reunification: Termination Of Incarcerated Dad’s Parental Rights Vacated
The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated a trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of an incarcerated father, finding that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services made no reasonable efforts toward reunification.
The respondent-father in In re I. Gordon, Minor (Docket No. 377942) was sentenced to a minimum of 37 years in prison. Shortly after, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) learned that the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) would not provide any case services to the father until he was closer to his release date. Given the father’s 37-year sentence, this meant no services were yet available to him, and would not be available for quite some time. Rather than developing an alternative case service plan, DHHS essentially stopped in its tracks. In fact, the caseworker indicated that “there [were] no case service plans” for the father and that “no services were provided to him.”
Ultimately, the Washtenaw County Circuit Court terminated the father’s parental rights to his child, IG. The trial court noted that MDOC’s policies prevented the father from having a relationship with IG and found that termination was in the child’s best interests under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h).
The father appealed, arguing the trial court erroneously found that 1) DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify him with IG; 2) termination was warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); and 3) termination was in the child’s best interests.
In an 11-page opinion, the Court of Appeals held that DHHS failed to provide the father with meaningful services or visitation, and improperly relied on MDOC policies without investigating whether visitation could actually occur. The appeals court emphasized that DHHS’s failure to make reasonable reunification efforts “affected the very framework” of the proceedings and impaired the father’s fundamental rights as a parent.
“[T]he fairness and integrity of the proceeding was seriously affected by the damage done to the framework in which the case progressed,” the Court of Appeals said. “We agree that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with IG, vacate the trial court’s order terminating father’s parental rights, and remand for further proceedings ….”
Court of Appeals Judges Michael F. Gadola, Michael J. Riordan and Anica Letica were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion.
‘Damage Done’
The father argued on appeal that the trial court wrongly found that DHHS made reasonable efforts to reunify him with IG in the absence of aggravating circumstances.
“We agree,” the Court of Appeals said, emphasizing that incarceration does not eliminate DHHS’s obligation to provide meaningful reunification efforts.
“Even if a parent is incarcerated, DHHS is still required to make efforts to afford the incarcerated parent a ‘meaningful and adequate opportunity to participate’ in the proceedings,” the Court of Appeals said. “Notably, if a parent’s incarceration prevents the parent from participating in the service plan as written, then DHHS has an obligation to update the service plan … and failure to do so prejudices a parent’s fundamental rights ….”
In this case, even though DHHS alleged aggravating circumstance of abandonment, it “ultimately opted not to pursue that theory,” the Court of Appeals noted. “Therefore, no aggravated circumstances existed to excuse DHHS from making reasonable efforts.”
Further, during the proceedings, “the caseworker testified that no case service plan was made for father, that no services were provided to him, and that he had no visits with IG,” the Court of Appeals pointed out. “[T]here is no dispute that MDOC’s policies and the circumstances of father’s incarceration impacted DHHS’s reunification efforts in this case. Yet, the caseworker did not testify about steps she took to identify services for father or how she tried to adjust father’s service plan given his incarceration and MDOC’s policy decision not to provide him with MDOC services until he was closer to his release date.”
In particular, the Court of Appeals noted that its own review of MDOC’s visitation policy “shows that it did not prohibit father from visiting with IG, either in-person or by video. In fact, the MDOC policy directive contains a specific process for DHHS employees or privately-run agencies working under a contract with DHHS to facilitate either an in-person or video visit between a prisoner and their child. Again, in this case there were no visits due to the current caseworker’s reliance on the court’s August 2024 order reflecting that parenting time was not currently permitted by the facility.”
Based on the record, “DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify IG with an incarcerated father by navigating MDOC policy to arrange in-person or virtual visits between father and IG and provide father with services that he could actually participate in and benefit from,” the Court of Appeals said. “Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that DHHS made reasonable efforts at reunification in this case was plainly erroneous.”
In making its decision, the Court of Appeals cited In re C. Walters, Minor, ___ Mich App ___ (2025) (Docket No. 369318) (Murray, J., concurring and dissenting in part) and said: “’[I]t is unclear how an aggrieved respondent could establish outcome determinative error concerning the denial of reunification services altogether’ when ‘the error improperly dispensed with a critical aspect of a child protective proceeding – the requirement to offer reunification services before terminating parental rights – affected the very framework within which this case progressed, undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings, and impaired respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over [his] children.’”
Because the father “met his burden of establishing that plain error occurred and that he was prejudiced, we vacate the trial court’s order terminating father’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings …,” the Court of Appeals held.
