17.3Termination of Parental Rights at Initial Dispositional Hearing

The court may enter an order terminating parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing pursuant to a request in an original or amended petition.¹ MCR 3.977(E)(1). See also MCL 712A.19b(4). If an original or amended petition does not request termination, an order terminating parental rights must not be entered. See In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 674 (2008) (“[a]bsent . . . a written request [for termination in the petition or amended petition], the . . . order terminating respondent’s parental rights . . . must be set aside.”).²

Note: Certain serious circumstances require the DHHS to file a petition requesting termination of parental rights at the initial disposition hearing. See MCL 722.638(1)-(2).³

A.Procedural Requirements

MCR 3.973 addresses procedural and substantive aspects of dispositional hearings in general,⁴ whereas MCR 3.977(E) sets out the procedural requirements for termination of parental rights at an initial dispositional hearing:

“The court shall order termination of the parental rights of a respondent at the initial dispositional hearing held pursuant to MCR 3.973, and shall order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the respondent shall not be made, if

(1) the original, or amended, petition contains a request for termination;

(2) at the trial or plea proceedings, the trier of fact finds by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the grounds for assumption of jurisdiction over the child under MCL 712A.2(b) have been established;

(3) at the initial disposition hearing, the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing legally admissible evidence that had been introduced at the trial or plea proceedings, or that is introduced at the dispositional hearing, that one or more facts alleged in the petition:

(a) are true, and

(b) establish grounds for termination of parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)[-](b), [or MCL 712A.19b(3)(d)-(m)];

(4) termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.”⁵

“The dispositional hearing [can] be conducted ‘immediately following the adjudicative hearing’ but the two [cannot] be converged such that there [is] no distinction.” In re Thompson, 318 Mich App 375, 376, 379 (2016), quoting In re AMAC, 269 Mich App 533, 538 (2006). “[T]he trial court must clearly bifurcate the proceedings by conducting the adjudicative hearing and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to take jurisdiction before proceeding to the dispositional phase.” In re Smith-Taylor, 339 Mich App 189, 196 (2021), rev’d on other grounds ___ Mich ___ (2022).

When MCR 3.973(A)-(C) and MCR 3.977(E)(3) are read together, “the following described process honors the intent of the court rules promulgated by our Supreme Court and applies when an adjudication trial is conducted and the DHHS requests termination at the initial dispositional hearing under circumstances such as those posed in [In re Mota, 334 Mich App 300 (2020):]

First, an adjudication trial is to be conducted with the court allowing the introduction of legally admissible evidence that is relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b). At the conclusion of the adjudication trial, the court, in a bench trial, is to determine whether the DHHS established by a preponderance of the evidence a basis for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b). If jurisdiction is not established, the proceeding is . . . concluded. If the trial court finds that it has jurisdiction, the dispositional hearing in which termination is sought may immediately be commenced. At the termination hearing, the trial court, in rendering its termination decision under MCL 712A.19b, may take into consideration any evidence that had been properly introduced and admitted at the adjudication trial, MCR 3.977(E), along with any additional relevant and material evidence that is received by the court at the termination hearing, MCR 3.977(H)(2).” Mota, 334 Mich App at 316.

In In re Mota, 334 Mich App at 317, “[t]he trial court . . . failed to proceed as required by the court rules” when “with respect to the presentation of evidence, the trial court did not separate the adjudication trial from the dispositional hearing, and it then issued rulings in regard to jurisdiction and termination after all the proofs were submitted.” However, in Mota, the Court could not conclude that “respondent’s substantial rights were affected or that the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of the proceedings were seriously affected by the court’s procedural errors.” Id.

B.Right to Appellate Review

“The respondent may challenge the assumption of jurisdiction in an appeal from the order terminating respondent’s parental rights if the respondent’s parental rights are terminated at the initial dispositional hearing pursuant to MCR 3.977(E).” MCR 3.971(C) (pleas of admission or no contest); MCR 3.973(H) (dispositional hearing).

Note: MCR 3.971(C), MCR 3.972(G), and MCR 3.973(H) also permit the “respondent [to] challenge the assumption of jurisdiction in an appeal from the order terminating respondent’s parental rights if the court fails to properly advise the respondent of their right to appeal pursuant to [MCR 3.971(B)(6)-(8), MCR 3.972(F)(1)-(3), and MCR 3.973(G)(2)-(4), respectively].” See Chapter 10 for additional discussion on MCR 3.971 (pleas of admission or no contest), Chapter 12 for additional discussion on MCR 3.972 (trials), and Chapter 13 for additional discussion on MCR 3.973 (dispositional hearings).