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 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 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.

The Trial Court did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), as Respondent-Mother was not “able” to provide DVL with the proper and necessary support for his care. The Trial Court also did not clearly err in refusing to take jurisdiction over DVL under MCL 712A.2(b)(2), as Respondent-Mother did not “neglect” DVL because Respondent-Mother did not engage in “negligent treatment” of DVL as defined by MCL 722.602(1)(d).

The Michigan Supreme Court has vacated part of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in In re JMG/JGG/JMG, Minors, remanding the termination of parental rights case and ordering the trial court to “make an individualized best-interests determination as to each child.”

The trial court in this child-protective proceeding did not “articulate an adequate basis or make sufficient factual findings to justify its denial of jurisdiction” over the minor child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

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 order from which the respondent appealed in this termination of parental rights case was not a “final order” pursuant to the court rules, a Michigan Court of Appeals majority has decided.

A trial court erred by exercising jurisdiction over a juvenile, therefore, the order terminating the respondent-father’s parental rights to the child had to be vacated.