Background
IG was born in July 2022 while both parents were jailed on murder charges. After the mother did not complete an adoption plan or identify an available caregiver, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services placed IG in foster care. DNA testing established respondent-father’s biological paternity in May 2023, but delays in executing an affidavit of parentage prevented him from becoming IG’s legal father until July 2024.
Father was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 37 to 60 years in prison. IG was placed with her maternal grandparents, who wanted to adopt her, while father favored a guardianship. DHHS eventually sought termination, and the trial court terminated father’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h), finding that his incarceration would deprive IG of a normal home for more than two years, that he had not provided proper care and custody, and that he could not do so within a reasonable time.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify father and IG. No aggravated circumstances excused that obligation because DHHS ultimately did not pursue its abandonment theory. Although father was incarcerated, DHHS was still required to give him a meaningful opportunity to participate, tailor services to his circumstances, and update any service plan that incarceration prevented him from completing.
The record showed that DHHS provided no usable services, did not supply workbooks or comparable materials, and did not adequately investigate or pursue in-person or virtual visits. The caseworker relied on an earlier court order stating that the prison did not permit parenting time, but the applicable Michigan Department of Corrections policy provided a process through which child-welfare personnel could facilitate visits. The failure to provide reunification efforts was plain error that undermined the framework and fairness of the termination proceedings and affected father’s substantial rights.
The court vacated the order terminating father’s parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. Because that ruling resolved the appeal, the court declined to address father’s challenges to the statutory ground for termination and the best-interest determination.
Key Takeaways
- Incarceration does not eliminate DHHS’s duty to make reasonable reunification efforts unless a court finds a statutory aggravated circumstance.
- DHHS must tailor services to an incarcerated parent’s actual circumstances and navigate prison procedures to pursue available in-person or virtual contact.
- An incarcerated parent may potentially provide proper care and custody through a fit relative or guardianship, even when the parent cannot personally care for the child.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a long prison sentence alone does not permit the state to bypass the reunification process. Before seeking termination, DHHS must identify services the parent can actually use and investigate available methods of maintaining the parent-child relationship.
It also confirms that the complete denial of required reunification efforts can constitute outcome-affecting plain error even when the parent did not preserve the issue below, because the error compromises the basic structure of the child-protective proceeding.