By Correy E. Stephenson
A trial court properly found statutory grounds to take jurisdiction over three minor children, a divided panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled, affirming the order.
Three minor children KP, NB and EJM were taken into protective custody. The order stated that NB’s biological father, who lived with the biological mother of all three children, had previously struck KP, giving her a black eye.
NB’s father was charged with domestic violence and a no-contact order was issued. On Feb. 28, 2023, however, he was found hiding in the family home with the mother’s knowledge and acquiescence.
The order removed the children form the home and placed them under the care and supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS.
Over the course of a three-day adjudication trial, KP testified that she was hit in the face and given a black eye by NB’s father, and that it was not the first time that he had hit her. She also testified to having gone several years without being in school and being placed in charge of her siblings’ educational needs.
KP estimated that the family had moved dozens of times in the last nine years, and that her mother and NB’s father would pack up and leave any time they had a run-in with the police or Children’s Protective Services. She also said her siblings did not receive proper medical care.
The trial court concluded that the mother and NB’s father had neglected the physical, emotional, mental and educational needs of the children, and entered an order taking jurisdiction over them.
NB’s father and the children’s mother appealed.
The appeals court affirmed, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that returning the children to the custody of their mother and NB’s father would present a substantial risk of harm to the children’s health and well-being.
Testimony was presented about the children’s “vagabond lifestyle,” the judges said, the lack of medical care and education, and even times when their mother failed to provide sufficient food to meet the children’s needs.
As for NB’s father, the court found his arguments that the trial court focused its factual determinations solely on KP and did not consider options besides removal for NB, “wrong on all counts.”
“At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the trial court placed a number of factual findings on the record that respondent-father does not contest on appeal,” the appeals panel wrote. “The trial court found that respondent-father struck KP and was charged with domestic violence for that conduct. The court found that KP was ‘primarily responsible for the care and upkeep of’ NB and EJM. It found that NB had not attended school in several years, that his schooling was left to KP, and that the combination of these facts amounted to ‘educational neglect.’”
The judges also found that reasonable efforts were made to consider a request to keep the children with their mother with certain conditions, but that she gave permission to NB’s father to violate the no-contact order and remain in the home.
“The court opined that it would be contrary to the welfare of all the children to remain in a placement with either respondent due to respondent-father’s ‘ongoing criminality’ and the accompanying acquiescence of respondent-mother,” the panel said.
These findings clearly satisfied the statutory requirements, the panel held, and the trial court plainly considered alternative placements but rejected these options based on the factual findings.
Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado authored a dissent to the per curiam opinion, calling the decision “a startling disregard for tribal rights” under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
“A critical fact omitted from the majority opinion is that both respondent-parents claimed tribal heritage early in the proceedings, and a representative of the Chickasaw Nation Tribe testified at the preliminary hearing that KP was eligible for tribal membership,” she wrote. “This fact triggered a slew of procedural and substantive safeguards created to remedy the systemic removal of Indian children from their families and from their tribes. Because these safeguards were ignored conditional reversal is necessary.”
The case is In re Peters/Brinton/Mathews ( MiLW 08-107989 , 7 pages).
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0