Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services sought removal of UC amid concerns about the mother’s unstable housing, frequent interstate moves, alleged neglect and abuse, and stated plan to send UC to an unidentified family friend in Canada. Because UC was an Indian child, representatives of the Native Village of Buckland participated in the proceedings. The Tribe supported removal after its president testified that culturally appropriate active efforts had been made but were unsuccessful.
The mother later pleaded no contest to allegations supporting the family court’s jurisdiction. After she stopped attending parenting time for several months and acknowledged that she had not seen UC for more than 90 days, the court terminated her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (j). The court did not advise her of her appellate rights when it ordered removal or when it accepted her no-contest plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the family court committed clear and obvious error by failing to advise the mother of her right to appeal at both the removal and adjudication stages. Because the mother did not object below or move to withdraw her plea, however, the omissions were reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights.
The errors did not warrant reversal. The evidence supported removal, including the mother’s instability and the imminent possibility that she would turn UC over at an airport to an unverified person in another country. The family court also sufficiently found that active efforts compliant with the Indian Child Welfare Act and Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act had been made. Finally, the mother did not show that proper appellate advice would have produced a different jurisdictional outcome given the substantial allegations supporting adjudication. The termination order was therefore affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A court must advise a parent of the right to appeal when ordering a child’s removal and must provide the required appellate-rights advice when accepting a plea at adjudication.
- An unpreserved failure to give those advisements does not require reversal unless the parent establishes plain error affecting substantial rights.
- In an Indian-child proceeding, active efforts require more than ordinary reasonable efforts, but the court need not describe its findings in a particular form or sequence.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that omitted appellate-rights advisements are clear procedural errors while emphasizing that reversal is not automatic when the issue was unpreserved. A parent must connect the omission to a potentially successful challenge and show that the error affected the proceeding’s outcome or integrity.
For Indian-child cases, the opinion also illustrates how tribal participation, culturally appropriate services, family-placement inquiries, and other affirmative measures can support the required finding that active efforts were made before removal.