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.

A mother who pleaded no contest in a termination of parental rights case did not waive or abandon her ability to challenge whether the Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable reunification efforts, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order terminating parental rights that was based primarily on the doctrine of anticipatory neglect because the evidence did not demonstrate that the child at issue was subject to the same risk of harm as the other child who had been abused by the parent 8 years prior and under very different circumstances.

The Trial Court clearly erred by finding the conditions for removal as to respondent-father were satisfied under MCL 712A.13a(9) and MCR 3.965(C)(2).

The trial court plainly erred when it ordered respondent’s children removed from her care. Under MCR 3.974(C)(3)(a), the hearing held by the trial court was not an emergency removal hearing. Since the trial court did not follow the procedural requirements to remove the children from her care, the court violated respondent’s procedural due process rights.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services violated the court rules in this termination of parental rights case when, at the father’s request, it did not produce video recordings of interviews conducted with his minor children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals vacated the order terminating Respondents’ parental rights because the trial court plainly erred by excusing reasonable efforts toward reunification without a proper aggravated circumstances finding.

The trial court in this termination of parental rights case wrongly held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent-father, who was in federal prison, with his child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order placing a minor child under a juvenile guardianship because the trial court 1) did not put its best-interest findings on the record and 2) did not conduct a hearing before ordering the guardianship.

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed the termination of a father’s parental rights, sending the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration after the father files a supplemental brief.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services was wrongly ordered to return or destroy the plaintiffs’ stored blood spots and data that had been collected under Michigan’s newborn health screening program, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

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.

Trial Court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights to her six children. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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 of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to terminate the respondent’s parental rights because he failed to assert the child’s Native American or tribal affiliation to the Trial Court and failed to demonstrate that he would be able to rectify his substance-use barrier in a reasonable time considering the child’s age.

When a parent challenges the validity of a release of parental rights on the ground that it was not made knowingly or voluntarily, the parent alleges a concrete injury arising from the trial court’s order and qualifies as an aggrieved party for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.

A divided Michigan Court of Appeals has affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights, with one appellate judge saying the termination order should be reversed because the trial court “clearly erred” in finding that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Respondent parents did not abandon their child and DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to remove the child. Therefore, the COA affirmed the trial court’s decision to decline jurisdiction.