Background
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services sought removal of UC after investigating concerns about the mother’s unstable housing, neglect, and stated plan to send UC to live with a purported family friend in Canada whose identity and qualifications the agency could not verify. The mother had lived in numerous states, moved repeatedly during the preliminary-hearing process, and had previously been involved in a substantiated neglect case concerning UC’s medication.
UC was determined to be an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act. Representatives of the Native Village of Buckland participated in the proceedings and supported removal after concluding that culturally appropriate active efforts had been unsuccessful. The mother later pleaded no contest to allegations supporting jurisdiction, stopped attending parenting time for several months, and admitted at the termination hearing that she had not seen UC for more than 90 days. The trial court terminated her parental rights on multiple statutory grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed clear and obvious error by failing to advise the mother of her appellate rights after UC’s removal and again when accepting her no-contest plea at adjudication. Because the mother did not object or seek to withdraw her plea below, however, the court reviewed the unpreserved claims for plain error and required her to show that the omissions affected her substantial rights.
The mother did not make that showing. The evidence supported removal under the heightened protections applicable to Indian children, including the imminent risk created by the proposed transfer of UC to an unverified person in Canada and the trial court’s finding that active efforts had been made. The mother also failed to show that an appeal from the jurisdictional ruling or a trial instead of her no-contest plea likely would have produced a different result, given the allegations of abuse, unstable housing and employment, and inadequate parenting. The court therefore affirmed the termination order.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court must advise a parent of the right to appeal both an order removing a child from the parent’s care and an adjudication based on a plea.
- An unpreserved failure to provide those advisements does not require reversal unless the parent shows under plain-error review that the omission affected substantial rights.
- In an Indian-child case, removal requires compliance with heightened active-efforts and risk-of-harm standards, but the trial court need not state its active-efforts findings in a particular form or sequence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a clear procedural violation from a reversible one. Parents challenging omitted appellate-rights advisements after termination must identify a potentially successful challenge they lost the opportunity to pursue, not merely establish that the required advisement was absent.
The opinion also illustrates how Michigan courts assess removal in cases governed by ICWA and MIFPA, emphasizing tribal participation, affirmative efforts to preserve the family, and evidence that continued parental custody is likely to cause serious harm.