Termination of Parental Rights on Basis of New or Different Circumstances

17.4Termination of Parental Rights on Basis of New or Different Circumstances

“The court may take action on a supplemental petition^[¹^] that seeks to terminate the parental rights of a respondent^[²] over a child already within the jurisdiction of the court on the basis of one or more circumstances new or different from the offense that led the court to take jurisdiction.” MCR 3.977(F).

“The court must order termination of the parental rights of a respondent, and must order that additional efforts for reunification of the child with the respondent must not be made,^[³^] if

(a) the supplemental petition for termination of parental rights contains a request for termination;

(b) at the hearing on the supplemental petition, the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing legally admissible evidence^[⁴] that one or more of the facts alleged in the supplemental petition:

(i) are true; and

(ii) come within MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)[-](b), [MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii)], [MCL 712A.19b(3)(d)-(g)], [or MCL 712A.19b(i)-(m)]; and

Parties must make the disclosures detailed in MCR 3.922(A) at least 21 days prior to the termination hearing. MCR 3.977(F)(2). Parties have rights to discovery consistent with MCR 3.922(A). The court must hold a hearing on a supplemental petition for termination of parental rights within 42 days after the supplemental petition is filed. MCR 3.977(F)(2). The court may extend the hearing for an additional 21 days on a showing of good cause. Id. Upon a showing of good cause, a court may extend the hearing beyond the additional 21 days allowed under the court rule. In re King, 186 Mich App 458, 462 (1990) (an additional continuance that was requested and agreed upon by the parties constituted good cause). See also In re Jackson (Shereathea Rebecca), 199 Mich App 22, 28-29 (1993) (citing to King, but finding that good cause was not shown where the respondent-mother failed to show she was prejudiced by the delay).

¹ For purposes of child protective proceedings, “‘[s]upplemental petition’ means: (a) a written allegation, verified in the manner provided in MCR 1.109(D)(3), that a parent, for whom a petition was authorized, has committed an additional offense since the adjudication of the petition, or (b) a written allegation, verified in the manner provided in MCR 1.109(D)(3), that a nonrespondent parent is being added as an additional respondent in a case in which an original petition has been authorized and adjudicated against the other parent under MCR 3.971 or MCR 3.972, or (c) a written allegation, verified in the manner provided in MCR 1.109(D)(3), that requests the court terminate parental rights of a parent or parents under MCR 3.977(F) or MCR 3.977(H).” MCR 3.903(C)(13). MCR 3.903(C)(8) defines a nonrespondent parent as “a parent who is not named as a respondent in a petition filed under MCL 712A.2(b).”

² MCR 3.977(B) limits the definition of respondent for termination of parental rights hearings to only include the child’s natural or adoptive mother and the child’s father as defined by MCR 3.903(A)(7). It does not include “other persons to whom legal custody has been given by court order, persons who are acting in the place of the mother or father, or other persons responsible for the control, care, and welfare of the child.” MCR 3.977(B).

³ See SCAO form JC 63, Order Following Hearing to Terminate Parental Rights, at https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49c114/siteassets/forms/scao-approved/jc63.pdf.

⁴ Where “the basis for the court taking jurisdiction of a child is unrelated to the basis for seeking termination of parental rights, . . . the basis for terminating parental rights lacks th[e] background of legally admissible evidence from the adjudicative phase and, thus, such a foundation must be laid before probative evidence not admissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence may be considered.” In re Snyder, 223 Mich App 85, 89-90 (1997).