Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED July19, 2011 In the Matter of A. J. MAY, Minor. No. 300795 Calhoun Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2010-001753-NA

Before: SAAD, P.J., and JANSEN and DONOFRIO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals the trial court's order that terminated his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h) and (n). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Contrary to respondent's assertion, the trial court did not err when it assumed jurisdiction over the minor child and terminated respondent's parental rights without first requiring the Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide reunification services. DHS was not involved in this child protective proceeding because the proceeding was initiated by petitioner, the minor child's guardian and maternal grandmother. Petitioner obtained the minor child's guardianship under MCL 700.5204 of the Estates and Protected Individual's Code (EPIC) pursuant to both parents' consent. Later, she wanted to discontinue the guardianship and adopt the child, and she initiated a child protective proceeding under the Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1, et seq., requesting termination of both parents' rights at the initial disposition. MCL 712A.19b(4); MCR 3.977(A)(2)(c) and (E). The child's mother indicated her intent to consent to a ground for termination of her parental rights and release the child for adoption, but respondent contested termination of his parental rights. Respondent argues that the trial court neglected its statutory duty in failing to require the DHS to prepare a case service plan and reunification services before terminating his parental rights. The question respondent presents is procedural and he argues in essence that lack of DHS reunification efforts violated his constitutional right to procedural due process and resulted in insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights. Respondent preserved the issue for appeal, and we review preserved constitutional issues for harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 774; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). In a child protective proceeding, MCL 712A.13a(8) provides, If the court orders placement of the juvenile outside the juvenile's home, the court shall inform the parties of the following: -1-

(a) That the agency has the responsibility to prepare an initial services plan within 30 days of the juvenile's placement. MCL 712.18f outlines the required contents of the case services plan if the child is removed and not returned home, and requirements for the trial court's periodic review. Here, the minor child was not removed or placed outside his home because his home consistently remained with petitioner under the guardianship. If any court-ordered action took place resembling a "placement" or "removal," it was during the guardianship proceeding under EPIC when the trial court granted petitioner the child's full guardianship and exclusive legal authority for his care and maintenance. No removal took place under the Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1, et seq., and therefore

Download IN RE A J MAY MINOR.pdf

Michigan Law