No Reunification Efforts Amidst Guardianship: Mother’s Parental Rights Wrongly Terminated

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case improperly determined that reasonable reunification efforts with the mother were not required, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, vacating the order terminating parental rights.

In the case of In re T. Cochran, Minor (Docket No. 379556), the Court of Appeals said the record did not include the necessary judicial determination that would excuse reasonable efforts to reunify the mother and her minor child, TC, who had been placed in a guardianship with the maternal grandmother.

“The trial court here found that reasonable efforts were not required, but it never found that any of the circumstances listed in MCL 712A19a(2) existed in this case, and we can discern no basis to conclude that any of them did,” the Court of Appeals wrote. “Reasonable efforts were therefore required, and the trial court clearly erred when it found that they were not.”

Because reasonable efforts were not provided, “we must vacate the order terminating respondent’s parental rights and remand this case for further proceedings, during which respondent must be provided with reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family,” the Court of Appeals held.

Judge Michael J. Kelly, Judge Colleen A. O’Brien and Judge Andrew J. Lievense were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion. (Note: A motion for the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision was filed on September 24, 2026. As of the publication of this blog, no decision on that motion had been issued.)

Background

In February 2023, the respondent-mother left TC with TC’s maternal grandmother and took the grandmother’s vehicle. Two months later, TC was placed in a guardianship with the grandmother.

In September 2025, the grandmother filed a petition asking the Jackson County Circuit Court to take jurisdiction over TC and to terminate the respondent’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing. The petition alleged the respondent failed for more than two years to: 1) provide “regular and substantial support” for TC, 2) substantially comply with a child-support order and 3) “regularly and substantially” contact or communicate with TC. The grandmother’s petition cited MCL 712A.19b(3)(f) as a ground for termination.

The trial court authorized the petition and ordered TC to remain in the grandmother’s care. However, the trial court did not check either box on the order indicating that 1) reasonable efforts had been made to preserve and reunify the family or 2) reasonable efforts were not required.

The trial court subsequently ruled it had jurisdiction over TC and that the petitioner had established statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court then conducted a separate hearing and determined that termination was in TC’s best interests.

The trial court entered a termination order, on which the trial court checked the box indicating that reasonable efforts were not required “as determined in a prior court order,” although there reportedly was no prior court order making such a determination.

The respondent appealed.

‘Wholly Unclear’ Reasoning

On appeal, the respondent argued the trial court wrongly terminated her parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing without first requiring reasonable reunification efforts.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the respondent, noting that Michigan law generally requires reasonable efforts to reunify a child and family, unless an exception in MCL 712A.19a(2) applies.

Here, the petition alleged that reasonable efforts were not required with respect to TC’s father based on alleged aggravated circumstances, the Court of Appeals noted. However, the petition “said nothing” about whether reasonable efforts were required with respect to the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals examined whether the trial court had made a judicial determination that the respondent subjected TC to any of the aggravated circumstances outlined in MCL 722.638(1) and (2), as required by MCL 712A.19(2)(a). In a footnote to its opinion, the Court of Appeals emphasized that aggravated circumstances “include such things as a parent abused the child; the abuse included abandonment, serious physical harm, a life-threatening injury, or criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate; and the parent was the suspected perpetrator of the abuse or is suspected of placing the child at an unreasonable risk of harm by failing to reasonably intervene to prevent the abuse.”

The Court of Appeals, finding the trial court had not made such a judicial determination, explained that “[t]he closest that the trial court came to making this determination was when the court checked the box in the order terminating respondent’s parental rights that stated, ‘Reasonable efforts were not required to preserve and reunify the family as determined in a prior court order.’ Problematically, there was no prior court order in which the court determined that reasonable efforts were not required. And we reiterate that the petition that sought to terminate respondent’s parental rights did not even allege that reasonable efforts were not required with respect to respondent.”

In another footnote to its opinion, the Court of Appeals further pointed out the trial court did not “make findings from which we can infer that the court implicitly determined that aggravated circumstances existed; the trial court never found that respondent abused TC, caused harm to TC, or unreasonably failed to prevent TC from being subjected to an unreasonable risk of harm.”

Based on the record, “it is wholly unclear why or on what grounds the trial court found that reasonable efforts to reunify respondent and TC were not required,” the Court of Appeals said. “This makes reviewing the basis for the trial court’s decision all but impossible, but it makes resolving the issue presented on appeal relatively straightforward. Reasonable efforts are required in all cases except those circumstances listed in MCL 712A.19a(2).”

Guardianship Did Not Nullify Right To Reunification

Notably, in another footnote to its opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected the suggestion that reasonable efforts become unnecessary when a child is placed in a guardianship and the guardian initiates the termination petition, rather than the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Relying on its decision in In re D.P. Rozenboom, Minor (Docket No. 371439), the Court of Appeals pointed out that “[n]one of the exceptions listed in MCL 712A.19a(2) state that reasonable efforts are not required if the child is in a guardianship and the guardian initiates the petition to terminate parental rights, as happened here.”

Citing Rozenboom, the Court of Appeals said it “reiterated this point, observing that if respondents in this type of case were not entitled to reasonable efforts, then it would effectively mean ‘that parents who place their children in guardianships have fewer rights than those who have their children removed by the state[.]’”