JUVENILE CASELAW UPDATE

BY JAMES PERRY (BAY)

​As of January 30, 2026
 
CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS
 
Michigan Supreme Court
 
None
 
Court of Appeals
Published decisions
 
In re Brown, Minor, No 371986, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, October 2, 2025
 
Termination of parental rights case.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s findings on the three grounds for termination, (c)(i), (g), and (j).  The trial court erred in focusing on Mother’s lack of housing suitable for herself and a child at an extended stay motel.  The Department did not clearly identify what was inappropriate about the motel room, as it was appropriate for unsupervised visits.  The Court of Appeals found Mother to have made progress in her treatment plan.  Mother tested positive for marijuana, which is legal.  Housing was not a basis for jurisdiction thus it was error to find termination under (c)(i).  The trial court did not make specific findings for the Court of Appeals to review under (g).  For (j) the focus was on the size of the motel room, not on what made it inadequate, or how that was harmful to the child. 

In re G A Burns, Minor, No 373903, Montcalm County Circuit Court Family Division, November 21, 2025
 
Appeal from the creation of a juvenile guardianship.  The parties agreed to change the goal to juvenile guardianship.  Time passed without the juvenile guardianship being finalized.  Mother wanted to make the trial court aware of her progress and to prevent the juvenile guardianship from being finalized.  The trial court entered an ex parte order creating the juvenile guardianship after a permanency planning hearing.
 
The Court of Appeals determined the stipulation through Mother’s attorney was for the goal to be juvenile guardianship – not to stipulate to the juvenile guardianship.  This allowed Mother to challenge the juvenile guardianship.  The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred by:
 
“First, the trial court neglected to place its best-interest findings on the record. At the final permanency planning hearing, the trial court stated that a guardianship was ‘appropriate.’ But the court neglected to explain which factors supported a determination that the appointment of a guardian was in GB’s best interests. There was no other hearing and no other findings on the record until the trial court entered its ex parte order….”
 
The COA vacated the ex parte order appointing a juvenile guardian.  The case was remanded to the trial court to conduct a juvenile guardianship hearing.
 
In re K M Alexander, Minor, No 371918 Lapeer County Circuit Court Family Division, January 9, 2026
 
Appeal from court-ordered repayment of attorney fees and LGAL fees to private petitioners.  The parents were unmarried, and the child was in a guardianship.  The guardians brought a petition to terminate the parents’ parental rights.  Sua sponte, the trial court ordered counsel for the parents per the Court’s policy and appointed an LGAL.  The court-appointed attorneys performed services and sought payment from the Court.  The Court ordered the guardians to repay the Court for their services – prior to any hearings being held or the parents request for an attorney.  The guardians appealed.
 
The Court of Appeals vacated the order for repayment by the guardians.  The statutes and court rules do not require the petitioner to pay for respondents’ attorneys.  Respondents, or some person responsible for them, could be ordered to pay based on their ability to pay.  Under the guardianship statute, the guardians are not legally responsible to pay for the ward’s care from their own money.  The Court of Appeals extended this to include costs associated with the neglect hearing, as the parents still had their parental rights and were paying child support.  Also, the Court did not follow the appropriate procedure in appointing an attorney before a hearing and before it was requested by the parent, after determining their eligibility and ability to pay.
 
Unpublished decisions
 
In re Jobson, Minors, No 373964; 373965, Tuscola County Circuit Court Family Division, October 14, 2025
 
Lack of full appellate rights given at the adjudication plea.  The respondents appealed their pleas for multiple errors, including the lack of appellate rights prior to the plea.  These issues were unpreserved due to not being raised with the trial court.  The Court of Appeals reviewed the unpreserved issues for plain error affecting substantial rights.  The respondents were not advised of all their appellate rights before their plea was accepted.  It was error; however, it did not affect their substantive rights as the respondents did not indicate they would have stopped the plea process had they known their full appellate rights.  The trial court also advised the respondents of their appellate rights at the initial dispositional hearing, from which they did appeal.
In re M Clark, Minor, No 374025, Ingham County Circuit Court Family Division, October 15, 2025
 
Aggravated circumstances case.  Baby presented with multiple injuries, including a broken rib.  DHHS filed a petition requesting termination at the initial dispositional hearing based on aggravated circumstances.  At the preliminary hearing, the referee made a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances after testimony from a DHHS worker.  Father pled no contest to causing some injuries to the child, denying any rib fracture.  An expert for DHHS and Father testified at disposition regarding the child’s injuries.  The DHHS expert, Dr. Guertin, opined that the rib fracture was caused by abuse and that “most likely it is the father causing all of the abuse,” because he believed the father was always in the child’s presence when the bruises appeared and had been found squeezing the child’s head.  Father’s expert, Dr. Smith, disagreed with Dr. Guertin as to the timing of the rib fracture, including that it could have happened at birth or when the child was given CPR.  The trial court found aggravated circumstances by clear and convincing evidence, terminating father’s parental rights.
 
Two of the judges on the Court of Appeals panel vacated the order terminating parental rights.  The panel found clear error in the trial court’s aggravated circumstances finding.  The causal link between the rib fracture and abuse by Father wholly came from Dr. Guertin’s testimony.  This alone is insufficient to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard.
 
The dissent on the panel would have affirmed the trial court’s order terminating parental rights.  The trial court is in a unique position to view the evidence presented, including the two competing experts, and the COA was committing legal error substituting their judgment for the trial court.
 
In re Z Keller, Minor, No 373036, Hillsdale County Circuit Court Family Division, October 16, 2025
 
Appeal of, among other things, an Ex Parte Removal Order of a newborn.  “ZK was removed from mother’s custody because she tested positive for methamphetamine and THC at birth. Mother likewise tested positive for amphetamines and THC when ZK was born. Mother admitted she had received no prenatal care. She had no supplies to care for a newborn and had no plan for postnatal care. CPS had prior contact with mother and knew that her parental rights to three of her other children had been terminated due to issues with substance use.”  These facts were sufficient to support the emergency removal under MCL 712A.13a(9). 
 
Mother argued that reasonable efforts could not have been made to prevent removal in the single day ZK was alive, despite the trial court’s finding they had been made.  The Court of Appeals held “The record supports that the court made findings under MCR 3.965(C)(4) and that no services short of removal could have safeguarded ZK under the circumstances, regardless of the brevity of her life prior to removal.”  The reasonable efforts included “mother had been involved in prior CPS investigations and had been offered foster care case management, safety planning, family team meetings, and Families First programming.”
 
In re Dunn, Minors, No. 373992, Alcona Circuit Court Family Division, October 23, 2025
 
Appeal of termination of parental rights.  Mother appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the petition only contained allegations of past conduct.  The Court of Appeals held MCL 712A.2b(1) and (2) do not require the allegations to be in a specific time frame before the petition is filed.  The children attended school dirty.  Mother was living in her car seven months before the petition was filed.  Her housing was unfit. 
 
In re Jones/Morris, Minors, No. 374019, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, October 30, 2025
 
Removal appeal after a preliminary hearing.  Mother had a history with CPS, including prior court involvement.  After issues with her mental health, Mother called and wanted the children taken by CPS.  At the preliminary hearing, the Referee found probable cause to authorize the petition and recommended removal of the children.  Mother appealed to the Circuit Court, which affirmed the recommendations.  Mother appealed to the Court of Appeals.
 
The Court of Appeals held Mother was not denied due process because she was able to testify at the preliminary hearing and her attorney was able to make an offer of proof prior to her testimony.  The referee may rely on hearsay evidence in making contrary to the welfare findings, so long as the hearsay evidence “possess adequate indicia of reliability.”  Mother left the children with caretakers three times.  All three times the caretakers were not home or unavailable to care for the children.  Mother called to have CPS take her children.  Her mental health also supported the contrary to the welfare findings, as she was alleged to have wrapped a sheet around her neck while at the hospital.
 
The Court of Appeals also held that, because the children were placed with their father, no reasonable efforts findings were needed.  Placement under MCR 3.903(B)(10) happens when the court approves transfer of the physical custody of a child into foster care.  Placement with their father did not meet the definition of placement under this court rule.
 
In re S Burkholder, Minor, No 373959, Kent County Circuit Court Family Division, December 11, 2025
and
In re Liddell/Burkholder, Minors, No 374948 Kent County Circuit Court Family Division, December 11, 2025
 
Termination of parental rights at initial disposition without an explicit finding of aggravated circumstances.  SL had burns on 16% to 17% of her body and a wrist fracture.  Mother pled guilty to First Degree Child Abuse.  Her sentence was 51 months to 20 years in prison.  SB was born while the case was pending.  Both children were removed.  Due to delays, the initial dispositional hearing was held months after adjudication.  Mother’s parental rights were terminated at initial disposition.
 
On appeal, Mother argued termination was improper because no aggravated circumstances finding was made, or permanency planning held, before initial disposition.  The Court of Appeals held reasonable efforts were made prior to initial disposition.  Aggravated circumstances were proven by Mother’s plea to First Degree Child Abuse, under MCL 712A.19a(2)(b)(iv).  Permanency planning hearings were held, with SL’s goal adoption and SB’s goal reunification.  Therefore, it was appropriate to terminate parental rights at the initial dispostional hearing because the requirements of “MCR 3.977(E) [were] met: that the original or amended petition requested termination, grounds for jurisdiction were established by a preponderance of the evidence, particular grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, and termination is in the child’s best interests.”
 
In re V L Turner, Minor, No 374024, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, December 18, 2025
 
Appeal from a removal following the preliminary hearing.  Mother received notice of the preliminary hearing via text message.  The petition sought in-home jurisdiction.  At the hearing, the Department sought removal, which was granted because Mother had not visited the child or provided financial support in a year.
 
On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the removal, holding that the petition must comply with MCR 3.961(B)(6) and specifically state if removal or termination of parental rights at initial disposition is requested.  Service on Mother by text message six days before the preliminary hearing was sufficient.
 
In re A Ickes, Minor, No 375736, Hillsdale County Circuit Court Family Division, December 19, 2025
 
Termination of parental rights appeal.  Father was putative when the petition was filed.  When located, he was in prison.  After an adjudication hearing, and before the paternity test results were known, jurisdiction was conditionally taken, with reasonable efforts ordered.  Initial disposition was delayed until the test results were known.  Parental rights were terminated at the initial dispositional hearing under the aggravated circumstance of abandonment.  This was done before a different judicial officer than the one who took the plea and ordered reasonable efforts.
 
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held aggravated circumstances under abandonment did not apply because only 83 days passed between the paternity test being ordered and initial disposition, not 91 days.  Although a court may consider a putative father’s conduct prior to a judicial determination of paternity within the 91 days.
 
 
Juvenile delinquency
 
None