Background
Respondent-father and petitioner-mother divorced in 2018, with sole legal and physical custody awarded to the mother and supervised visitation to the father. The mother subsequently remarried petitioner-stepfather in May 2023. That same month, the stepfather and mother filed a petition for stepparent adoption in June 2023, seeking to involuntarily terminate respondent-father’s parental rights based on alleged failure to pay child support and lack of contact for two or more years.
The trial court held a termination hearing in September 2023 without respondent-father’s attendance. Although the court found that “adequate attempts were made to serve” respondent-father by regular and certified mail, he did not actually receive notice and was unaware of the proceedings. The trial court terminated his parental rights, and the adoption was finalized in December 2023. Respondent-father did not learn of the termination until December 2023 when the mother notified him of the name change.
In July 2024, respondent-father moved pro se to set aside the termination order, asserting he had not been properly served, had not appeared at the hearing, and that the termination was based on incomplete facts. He presented evidence showing he had contact with the child in July 2021, had repeatedly requested visitation which the mother refused, and had been unable to enforce his visitation rights during an 11-month period when the custody case was stuck in transfer between courts.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s vacation of the parental rights termination order. The court held that Michigan Court Rule 2.612—the general civil procedure rule allowing relief from judgments based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect—applies to adoption proceedings, notwithstanding the adoption-specific procedures outlined in MCL 710.64(1) and MCR 3.806.
The court rejected petitioners’ argument that adoption-specific statutes and rules created an exclusive remedy. Under plain language interpretation of the Michigan Court Rules, general civil procedure rules govern all proceedings except where adoption-specific rules “provide a different procedure.” MCL 710.64 and MCR 3.806 establish a 21-day time frame and procedures for seeking rehearing, but they do not prohibit the separate mechanism for relief provided by MCR 2.612. The two rules operate independently: MCR 3.806 governs timely rehearing petitions within 21 days, while MCR 2.612 provides an additional avenue for relief within one year based on the court’s own mistake.
The court vacated the termination based on the trial court’s mistake regarding the statutory requirements of MCL 710.51(6)(b), which requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent had the “ability” to visit, contact, or communicate with the child but “regularly and substantially failed or neglected to do so” for at least two years before the petition. The record demonstrated: (1) respondent-father had contact with the child in July 2021, within the two-year window; (2) he made repeated efforts to arrange visitation, which the mother refused unless he relinquished his parental rights; and (3) his ability to enforce visitation was impeded by an 11-month period when the underlying custody case was stuck in transfer between courts. The trial court had not considered this information when rendering its termination decision because respondent-father, lacking proper notice, did not appear and petitioners failed to present it. Upon learning of the termination, respondent-father timely moved for relief under MCR 2.612(C)(1)(a).
Key Takeaways
- MCR 2.612 applies to adoption termination proceedings as a separate mechanism for obtaining relief beyond the 21-day statutory rehearing period, properly balancing the Adoption Code’s dual purposes of promptness and procedural fairness.
- Trial courts may vacate parental rights termination orders based on the court’s own mistake regarding statutory requirements, particularly when the record later demonstrates that material facts were not considered at the termination hearing.
- The statutory requirement that a parent have “ability” to visit, contact, or communicate with a child is not satisfied when case administration issues or parental interference impede that ability.
- A biological parent who does not receive proper notice of termination proceedings and who timely seeks relief upon learning of the termination is entitled to have the court reconsider its decision based on newly presented evidence.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly impacts adoption practice by establishing that parental rights termination orders are not absolutely final after 21 days. Trial courts retain authority to correct their mistakes regarding statutory requirements up to one year after entry of the order. The ruling protects biological parents’ procedural rights while acknowledging the Adoption Code’s mandate for finality and stability. It clarifies that when trial courts terminate parental rights without adequate information about the parent’s efforts to maintain contact or abilities to do so, those orders remain vulnerable to challenge through MCR 2.612 relief.
The decision also addresses the particular vulnerability of parents who fail to receive proper notice of adoption termination proceedings. By allowing relief when the court admits it lacked critical information at the time of its decision, the ruling ensures that terminations proceed only upon the actual satisfaction of clear and convincing evidence standards, rather than on assumptions or incomplete factual records. This balances finality concerns against constitutional protections for biological parents’ fundamental liberty interests in their relationship with their children.