Chapter 10: Pleas of Admission or No Contest
In this chapter. . .
A respondent may enter a plea of admission or no contest to allegations contained in a petition. If the court accepts a respondent’s plea, the court takes jurisdiction over the child or children involved in the case. This chapter sets out the rules governing the taking of pleas of admission or no contest. It discusses when a plea may be entered, required advice of rights, and establishing a factual basis for a plea. The effect of a plea by one respondent, but not the other, is also noted.
A parent may consent to the termination of his or her parental rights. See Section 17.8.
10.1When Respondent May Make a Plea of Admission or No Contest
An individual involved in a child protective proceeding may be eligible for admission to a family treatment court program if, among other requirements, “the individual has a substance use disorder,” MCL 600.1099ee(a), and “[t]he allegations contained in the petition [are] related to the abuse, illegal use, or possession of a controlled substance or alcohol,” MCL 600.1099ff(a). See Section 7.7 for information about family treatment courts.
“A respondent may make a plea of admission or of no contest to the original allegations in the petition.” MCR 3.971(A).
With an amended petition,1 however, the court has the discretion whether to permit a respondent to enter a plea of admission or no contest. MCR 3.971(A). The plea may be taken at any time after the authorization of a petition if:
(1) the petitioner and the child’s attorney are notified of the plea offer to the amended petition; and
(2) the petitioner and the child’s attorney are given an opportunity to object before the plea is accepted. MCR 3.971(A).
The plea of admission or no contest to the allegations in the petition must be made by the respondent. In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 670 (2008). A respondent is “the parent, guardian, legal custodian, or nonparent adult who is alleged to have committed an offense against a child.” MCR 3.903(C)(12). An offense against a child is “an act or omission by a parent, guardian, nonparent adult, or legal custodian asserted as grounds for bringing the child within the jurisdiction of the court” under the Juvenile Code. MCR 3.903(C)(9).
In In re SLH, 277 Mich App at 670, the trial court erred in finding jurisdiction over the children based on the mother’s plea to a petition that alleged only that she found the respondent having sex with their child and that the respondent admitted as much. Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals concluded:
“The petition does not allege that the mother permitted, or failed to prevent, the alleged sexual abuse from occurring. Therefore, although the mother was a ‘party’ to the proceeding, by definition, she was not a respondent. Because only a respondent may enter a plea and the mother was not a respondent, she could not enter a plea.
* * *
At trial, the mother certainly could testify regarding what she witnessed and the alleged admission by respondent, but these could not be the basis for a plea, because they involve no wrongdoing by her. Although the failure of one parent to protect a child from abuse or neglect by the other parent can be grounds for taking jurisdiction over the child, in this case the petition did not allege that the mother failed to protect her daughters, and the court’s belief that ‘there’s a suggestion there was a failure to protect this child from inappropriate behavior from her father’ is insufficient to serve as an allegation against the mother if it is not contained in the petition. Only allegations contained in the original, or amended, petition can be the basis for jurisdiction.” In re SLH, 277 Mich App at 670-671.
B.Plea by One Respondent-Parent Does Not Extend Court’s Jurisdiction to Unadjudicated Second Parent
Although “courts may assume jurisdiction over a child on the basis of the adjudication of one parent[,]” procedural “due process requires that every parent receive an adjudication hearing before the state can interfere with his or her parental rights.” In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 412 n 8, 415 (2014) In In re Sanders, the Court of Appeals found the one-parent doctrine2 unconstitutional and vacated the trial court’s order that limited the unadjudicated parent’s contact with his children and required that he comply with a service plan following the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the children based on the respondent-mother’s no contest plea to allegations of child neglect and abuse and remanded the case to the trial court. Id. at 402-403, 422-423. For additional information on the procedural due process rights of the unadjudicated parent, see Section 4.3(C)(2). For a discussion on the dispositional phase of child protective proceedings, see Chapter 13.
Note: The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the one-parent doctrine violates a nonadjudicated parent’s due process rights, In re Sanders, 495 Mich at 412, 422, applies retroactively “to all cases pending on direct appeal at the time [Sanders] was decided.” In re Kanjia, 308 Mich App 660, 674 (2014).
“[N]either the admissions made by [the adjudicated parent] nor [the unadjudicated parent’s] failure to object to those admissions constituted an adjudication of [the unadjudicated parent’s] fitness[.]” In re SJ Temples, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 12, 2015 (Docket No. 323246)3 (finding that the trial court violated the unadjudicated parent’s “due process rights by subjecting him to dispositional orders without first adjudicating him as unfit[]”).