Background
IG was born in July 2022 while both parents were jailed on murder charges. After the mother abandoned an adoption plan and proposed no available caregiver, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services placed IG in foster care. DNA testing established respondent-father’s paternity in May 2023, but delays in completing an affidavit of parentage prevented him from becoming IG’s legal father until July 2024. IG was placed with her maternal grandparents in April 2024.
Father was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 37 to 60 years in prison. DHHS eventually petitioned to terminate his parental rights, and the trial court terminated under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h), reasoning 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. Although father favored a guardianship with IG’s maternal grandparents, they sought adoption. The trial court also found through a checkbox in its termination order that DHHS had made reasonable reunification efforts.
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 pleaded abandonment theory. Incarceration did not eliminate DHHS’s duty to give father a meaningful opportunity to participate, develop or update a service plan suited to his circumstances, and provide services he could actually use.
DHHS created no workable service plan, provided no services or alternative materials such as workbooks, and made no adequate effort to arrange in-person or virtual visits. The caseworker relied on a court order stating that the prison did not permit parenting time, even though the applicable Michigan Department of Corrections policy provided a process through which DHHS personnel could facilitate visits. These failures constituted plain error that affected father’s substantial rights and undermined the framework and integrity of the proceedings. The court vacated the termination order and remanded without reaching father’s challenges to the statutory ground for termination or the best-interest determination.
Key Takeaways
- DHHS must make reasonable reunification efforts for an incarcerated parent unless the court finds a legally recognized aggravated circumstance.
- A service plan must account for incarceration and offer services the parent can actually access, including available alternatives when prison programming is unavailable.
- DHHS must accurately investigate prison visitation policies and attempt to arrange permitted in-person or virtual contact rather than relying on an unsupported assumption that visitation is prohibited.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that incarceration alone does not permit the state to bypass reunification obligations before terminating parental rights. Agencies must adapt their efforts to prison conditions and explore whether an incarcerated parent can provide proper care and custody through relatives or a guardianship.
It also shows that a complete failure to provide meaningful reunification services can warrant reversal under plain-error review even when the parent did not preserve the issue below, because the omission compromises the basic framework of the child-protective proceeding.