Because the trial court was not permitted to exercise jurisdiction over respondent-father due to his status as a putative father at the time the petition was filed, it was barred from determining that it was in the best interests of CSA to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights.

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.

The trial court’s finding that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests must be “conditionally reverse[d],” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, because the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) failed to comply with its statutory duty to investigate relative placements.

Trial Court properly denied guardian’s request to terminate mother’s parental rights because, even though mother had not had substantial and regular contact with the child for more than 2 years and although mother had not supported the child for more than 2 years, the guardian’s actions prevented phone calls and visits.

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.”

Previously, the Court of Appeals found plain error after the Trial Court held that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her right to appeal the Trial Court’s removal of the children from her care.

An order terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing must be reversed because the trial court’s analysis was “flawed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s order terminating Respondent-Mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). DHHS failed to plead aggravated circumstances, and also failed to provide facts supporting their request for termination at initial disposition.

The Trial Court’s best interest analysis in terminating Respondent-Father’s parental rights was “erroneously incomplete” due to the Trial Court’s failure to consider CJM’s placement with a “relative” as defined by MCL 712A.13a(1)(j) during the best interest determination.

The Trial Court did not clearly err when it determined termination of Respondent-Father’s parental rights was appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and that termination was in the minor child, KS’, best interests.

The Trial Court plainly erred when it found that Respondent-Mother was not entitled to reasonable efforts to reunify Respondent-Mother with her minor children and when it failed to inform Respondent-Mother of her appellate rights following the Trial Court’s removal of the children from Respondent-Mother’s care.

The COA reversed and remanded a trial court order that terminated mother's parental rights due to two-year child support order compliance period. The COA also affirmed the trial court’s determination that the petitioners had proven MCL 712A.19(3)(f)(ii) by clear and convincing evidence.

The father in this termination of parental rights case did not have standing to claim that his child’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.