MSC Holds DHHS Not Required To Provide Reasonable Efforts To Reunify Child After Subjection To Aggravated Circumstances
MSC Opinion Released: July 31, 2025
MSC Docket No. 167745; COA Docket No. 369359
Lenawee County Circuit Court, Family Division
Authored by Chief Justice Cavanagh
Holding: The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.
Facts: The DHHS petitioned the Lenawee Circuit Court to take jurisdiction over two minor children, CB and ME, and terminate the parental rights of Respondent-Mother after CB alleged sexual abuse by two of Respondent’s male friends. CB disclosed that the abuse occurred between the ages of two and nine, and that Respondent was aware of it, even allowing one man to abuse CB in exchange for drugs. The trial court authorized the petition, suspended Respondent’s parenting time, and ordered the children to remain with Nonrespondent-Father. During the combined adjudication and termination hearing, CB testified about the abuse, including an incident where Respondent left her in a room with a man who sexually abused her. The trial court found CB's testimony credible and concluded that grounds for adjudication existed under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), and that termination was warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (j).
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that aggravated circumstances were not present under MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii) because Respondent was not the perpetrator of the criminal sexual conduct. The Court of Appeals also found that the trial court erred by not advising Respondent of her right to appeal the removal order, which prejudiced her ability to challenge the aggravated circumstances finding. The children's lawyer-guardian ad litem sought leave to appeal, and the Michigan Supreme Court ordered oral argument.
Key Appellate Ruling:
The Michigan Supreme Court held that DHHS is not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify a child and family when a parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances as defined in MCL 722.638(1) and (2). The Court determined that a parent can be found to have subjected a child to aggravated circumstances if they facilitate criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even if they do not personally commit the act.
In the present case, Respondent was found to have abused her child, CB, through sexual exploitation that included criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, satisfying the requirements of MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii). The Court also found that Respondent placed CB at an unreasonable risk of harm by failing to take reasonable steps to intervene, thus satisfying MCL 722.638(2). Consequently, the trial court was justified in terminating the respondent's parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing without making reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
The Court emphasized that MCL 722.638(1) does not require the parent to be the one who committed the act of criminal sexual conduct; it is sufficient if the parent abused the child and the abuse included such conduct. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory framework allows for termination of parental rights at the initial disposition if both MCL 722.638(1) and (2) are satisfied, excusing the need for reasonable reunification efforts.
The Court also addressed the procedural error of not advising Respondent of her right to appeal the removal order but concluded that this error did not affect Respondent's substantial rights.
Ultimately, The Court found that the trial court did not err in its decision to terminate parental rights, as the statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence, and it was in the children's best interests. The Court of Appeals’ decision was reversed and the trial court’s order terminating Respondent’s parental rights was reinstated, affirming that the statutory requirements for aggravated circumstances were met.
