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 Court of Appeals partially affirmed and partially reversed the Trial Court's decision, ruling that Kent County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the child custody matters, while Ottawa County Circuit Court erred in denying a motion to quash without considering alternative arguments related to continuing jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s order on the basis that the Trial Court could not take jurisdiction because the minor child is protected under a no-contact order with Respondent and the minor child is living in a fit home environment with the non-respondent mother, who has been protecting the minor child and meeting her needs.

The trial court wrongly held that the statutory grounds for jurisdiction over the child were established by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Court stated that the trial court erred when it found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights to the minor child was proper.

The Court of Appeals reversed the termination of Respondent-Mother’s parental rights to her minor child in In the Matter of V. M. Inman.

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.