ICWA also does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering doctrine. ICWA’s “active efforts” and “diligent search” requirements apply equally to state and private actors.

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding correctly placed the mother’s children under its jurisdiction because “some efforts” were made by DHHS to prevent removal of the children.

The trial court in this child-welfare case did not make all the factual findings necessary to remove the minor child from her parents’ custody and, as a result, the removal order must be vacated.

The Michigan COA has ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal in a child-welfare case because trial counsel filed the appeal, and not the father whose parental rights were terminated.

The father in Blakeman was being kept out of his home and away from his four children pursuant to an Ingham County trial court order, which was contrary to the recommendations of CPS.

Two minor children, and their mother are members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and thus, when “removed” from the mother, MIFPA was applied.

In the matter of In re B. Hadd, Minor, the termination of parental rights of both parents by the lower court was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

In a recent case, In the Matter of Kloosterman, the Court of Appeals had the opportunity to examine the meaning of MCL 712A.2(b), the provision which permits a trial court to take jurisdiction over the child in a child welfare proceeding.

One of the major recommendations/themes I heard repeated during that conference pertained to what a non-respondent parent should do if the trial court is looking to take jurisdiction of the child due to allegations against the other parent.