Background
The dispute grew out of a child protective proceeding involving mother Charbriae Monet Blair and her child, NJBE. After NJBE reported physical abuse, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services sought removal of NJBE and a younger sibling. Blair pleaded no contest to allegations establishing jurisdiction and was ordered to complete a parent agency agreement. Father Ernest Lamont Emory established paternity, and NJBE was placed with him.
Emory later filed a separate action under Michigan’s Child Custody Act seeking sole legal and physical custody. Although Blair had appointed counsel, counsel did not file an answer or another motion. After the parties failed to reach an agreement, the trial court entered a default and awarded Emory sole legal and physical custody, with Blair receiving supervised parenting time. Blair appealed solely on the ground that she had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Although parties may raise ineffective-assistance claims in child protective proceedings, the appeal concerned the separate custody action rather than the protective proceeding. Blair did not challenge the disposition of the protective case, the entry of default, or the custody award itself.
Relying on Haller v. Haller, the court held that a litigant has no constitutional due-process right to counsel in a custody proceeding. Because the right to effective assistance derives from an underlying right to counsel, Blair could not obtain relief for allegedly ineffective representation in the custody case.
Key Takeaways
- A parent may assert ineffective assistance of counsel in a child protective proceeding, where a right to counsel exists.
- A separate custody action under Michigan’s Child Custody Act does not carry a constitutional due-process right to counsel.
- Without a right to counsel in the custody case, Blair had no corresponding right to effective assistance and could not obtain relief on that theory.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that related child protective and custody matters remain legally distinct even when they involve the same family, are handled by the same judge, and bear overlapping docket references. The source of the challenged order—not merely the broader factual context—determines whether an ineffective-assistance claim is available.
For custody litigants, appointed representation does not itself create a constitutional entitlement to effective assistance. Alleged attorney failures therefore may require remedies other than a constitutional ineffective-assistance claim, such as retaining new counsel and seeking modification when legally available.