|
No. 137362
| In re Richard Hudson, Dennis Morgan, and |
|
|
| Michael Morgan, Minors. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Department of Human Services, |
|
Mary C. Pino |
Petitioner-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Clinton - Sullivan, L.) |
|
|
| Melanie Morgan, |
|
Vivek S. Sankaran |
Respondent-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Andrew Tanner, |
|
|
Respondent. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioner-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Petitioner-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Respondent-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Department of Attorney General's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan's Children's Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
The Michigan Department of Human Services became involved with Melanie Morgan’s family due to allegations of substance abuse, an improper home environment, improper supervision of children, and poor parenting skills. DHS ultimately asked the trial court to terminate Morgan’s parental rights to her children, aged 16, eight, and five. There was testimony at the termination trial that Morgan’s parenting skills improved over the course of DHS’s involvement with her family. Witnesses indicated that Morgan’s children were bonded to her, but that she continued to have financial and emotional problems, and periodically tested positive for drugs. The trial court terminated Morgan’s parental rights, finding statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(c),(g), and (j); the court also concluded that termination would not be contrary to the children’s best interests. Morgan appealed, arguing that the trial court’s order should be vacated because the trial court failed to provide her with a lawyer until 14 days before the termination trial. Moreover, her admissions to DHS’ original petition, which gave the trial court jurisdiction over her family, was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly, because the trial court failed to advise Morgan that her admissions could ultimately result in the termination of her parental rights, Morgan contended. The Court of Appeals denied relief on those issues in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The Court of Appeals observed that, at the termination trial, DHS did not rely on Morgan’s admissions, but presented a protective services worker’s testimony to establish the factual basis for jurisdiction. As to the counsel issue, Morgan failed to ask the trial court to appoint an attorney for her, the appellate panel observed. But the Court of Appeals reversed the termination of parental rights, stating that the trial court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds for termination; there was, the panel concluded, “an obvious dearth of evidence supporting any of the statutory grounds” that the trial court invoked. The trial court also clearly erred in finding that termination was not contrary to the children’s best interests, the Court of Appeals said. DHS appeals.
Top of Page
|
