In Michigan, DHS MUST file a petition seeking termination of parental rights if a parent has previously had his or her parental rights to another child terminated, MCL 722.638 At ajudication, is jurisdiction automatic or does parent have opportunity to show change in situation? Does CPS have burden to show specific type of neglect anticipated and evidence for same? If the subsequent newborn is several months old and evidence shows proper and safe parenting, should the court take jurisdiction?
IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING, HIRE A LAWYER OR REQUEST A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER IMMEDIATELY.
The DHS must file a petition seeking termination of parental rights at an initial disposition hearing if a parent has previously had his or her parental rights to another child terminated, there is a risk of harm to a current child, AND the parent has failed to eliminate that risk. MCL 722.638. Three subsections of MCL 712A.19b(3) allow for termination of parental rights based on a prior termination of parental rights.
In In re Futch, 144 Mich App 163, 166—68 (1984), the Court of Appeals held that evidence that respondents were convicted of manslaughter in the beating death of respondent-mother’s first child supported assumption of jurisdiction over and termination of respondents’ parental rights to a subsequent child. “This Court has not required that neglect or abuse of a specific child must be shown as a prerequisite to jurisdiction.” Id. at 168, citing Dittrick, supra and LaFlure, supra.
In In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 679—81 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that where respondent’s parental rights to previous children were involuntarily terminated based upon abandonment and her parental rights to other previous children were voluntarily terminated after child protective proceedings were initiated, it was not error for the court to find jurisdiction based upon the doctrine of anticipatory neglect. The Court rejected the mother’s argument that “[p]ast conduct is not a statutory ground for asserting jurisdiction, there must be some current physical harm or threat of serious emotional harm.” Id. at 680, quoting
Dittrick, supra and Powers, infra.
In In re McCoy, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided April 18, 2000 (Docket No. 217459), the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in taking judicial notice of its file from a previous termination of parental rights proceeding in order to establish jurisdiction over the current children. Moreover, in a footnote, the Court of Appeals asserted that “[t]he fact that respondent-appellant’s parental rights to three older children had been involuntarily terminated for neglect was sufficient to support the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the minor children.” Id., citing Dittrick, supra, In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582 (1995), Baby X, supra, and LaFlure, supra.
DISCLAIMER: This answer is provided as general information, which may not be appropriate for the specific facts of your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship has been established based on this limited communication. You are advised to consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction before taking any action or inaction that may affect your legal rights. www.hecklerlawoffice.com
Sign up to receive a 5-part series of useful information and advice about child custody law.
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline