The minor child
was placed under a guardianship with his maternal grandmother when he was a few
months old. When the child was nearly five
years old, the guardian petitioned to terminate the parental rights of respondent
father, who was imprisoned. At that time, the identity of the child’s father
was undetermined, but during proceedings on the petition, respondent was
determined to be the child’s biological father in September 2017. Respondent
moved to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that jurisdiction was improper under
MCL 712A.2(b)(2) because there was no indication that the guardian’s home was
an unfit place for the child to live, and improper under MCL 712A.2(b)(6) because
he had only recently been declared the child’s legal father and had not been
provided an opportunity to support and visit the child. Thus, according to respondent, the two-year
period of failure to visit and support the child, as required to establish
jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(6), was not met. The trial court held that it had jurisdiction
under both MCL 712A.2(b)(2) and (6), and it terminated respondent’s parental
rights. In a published opinion, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order assuming jurisdiction over
the child and, consequently, the termination of respondent’s parental
rights. The Court of Appeals held that
respondent had no legal obligation to visit or support the child during the two
years before the guardian filed the petition seeking termination of parental
rights. The Supreme Court has ordered
oral argument on petitioner’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals clearly
erred in reversing the trial court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(2), where the child was living with a
guardian and there was no evidence that the guardian’s home was unfit, yet
there was evidence that the respondent father is incarcerated and had a history
of criminal conduct; (2) whether the Court of Appeals clearly erred in
reversing the trial court’s additional decision to exercise jurisdiction over
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(6), based on respondent father’s
conduct in the two years preceding the filing of the petition when he was a
putative, not legal, father; and (3) whether the trial court’s reliance on In re LE, 278 Mich App 1 (2008), was
misplaced.