Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan 48909
____________________________________________________________________________________________
C h i e f J u s ti c e J u s t ic e s
Maura D. Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh
Opinion
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FILED MAY 20, 2003
In re JK, Minor.
________________________________
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v No. 121410
MELISSA KUCHARSKI,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________
PER CURIAM
A judge in the Family Division of the Kent Circuit Court
terminated the respondent mother’s parental rights to her
three-year-old son after concluding that there were attachment
and bonding problems between the respondent and the child.
Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeals,
respondent filed a timely application for leave to appeal in
this Court. While that application was pending, unknown to
this Court, the family division of the circuit court engaged
in the apparently unprecedented and extraordinary action of
allowing the foster parents to adopt the child.1 Again,
unaware of this adoption, we remanded for additional findings.
Because we find the evidence supporting termination to be
insufficient, we vacate the order terminating the respondent’s
parental rights.2 We also take this opportunity to make clear
what we believe to be obvious, that the circuit court is not
permitted to proceed with an adoption following a termination
of parental rights where the parent’s appeal of that decision
remains pending.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In April 1999, the Kent Circuit Court, Family Division,
assumed temporary jurisdiction over the minor child on the
basis of the respondent’s admitted marijuana use. The child,
who was then sixteen months old, was placed in a foster home
by Catholic Social Services3 while the respondent entered an
in-patient substance-abuse treatment program. For the first
ten months of the child’s wardship, Catholic Social Services
1
None of the members of this majority can recall having
ever encountered this situation, in which an adoption order
entered while a timely appeal was pending in a parental
rights-termination case.
2
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of
the father, Travis Englehart. He did not appeal.
3
Catholic Social Services provided foster care for court
wards on the basis of a contract with the Kent County Family
Independence Agency.
2
planned to return the child to the respondent. Visits between
the respondent and the child went well, and the respondent
actively interacted with the child. Initially, the visits
were weekly, but later were increased to twice weekly. The
child was sufficiently bonded to the respondent that he cried
when forced to leave her.4
Catholic Social Services subsequently placed the
respondent in the same foster home. The foster parents
reported that the respondent did a good job with the child and
attended to most of his needs.
In June 2000, Catholic Social Services filed a petition5
to terminate the respondent’s parental rights on the basis of
allegations that the conditions that led to the adjudication
continued to exist and there was no reasonable expectation
that the respondent would rectify the conditions within a
4
At the July 1999 review hearing, the social worker,
Lora Holewinski, opined that the respondent did not require
parenting classes or a psychological examination. She praised
the respondent for her attentiveness to the child during the
visits, and her only negative comment was about the
respondent’s initial defiance in the substance-abuse program,
which had subsided by the time of the July 1999 hearing.
5
A permanent-custody petition was filed earlier, in
April 2000. However, the allegations in that petition refer
to the respondent’s mother, rather than the respondent. The
respondent’s mother was also the subject of neglect
proceedings.
3
reasonable time given the child’s age.6 As a factual basis
for the allegation against the respondent, Catholic Social
Services alleged that the respondent failed to submit to a
required psychological evaluation, failed to adequately
participate in counseling at the Dakotah Family Treatment
Center and Aftercare Process Program,7 and was continuing to
use alcohol and marijuana. The petition also alleged that the
respondent was inattentive and acted inappropriately during
agency visits with the child.
Catholic Social Services had referred the respondent to
therapist Elaine Hoogeboom for weekly substance-abuse
therapy.8 In November 2000, Catholic Social Services, for the
first time, expressed specific concern with the respondent’s
bonding and attachment to the child. The social worker asked
the respondent’s therapist to address the newly raised concern
in weekly therapy with the respondent. Hoogeboom began
meeting weekly with the respondent, her boyfriend, and the
child to address the bonding and attachment issue. Several of
6
This is a ground justifying permanent custody pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i).
7
However, at the October 1999 statutory review hearing,
the social worker testified that the respondent had completed
the in-patient portion of the program, but did not “graduate”
because the weekend before the “graduation” she had violated
one of the personal-conduct rules of the program.
8
The respondent began meeting with Hoogeboom weekly in
July 2000.
4
the sessions involved only the respondent and her boyfriend
because the foster mother failed to bring the child. Less
than one month after the bonding and attachment therapy began,
Ywania Richardson, a therapist who practiced in Genesee
County, conducted a bonding and attachment assessment of the
respondent and her child. She observed their interaction for
less than one hour.
The permanent-custody trial took two days in early 2001.
At the beginning of the trial, the parties stipulated that
only legally admissible evidence could be used to establish
the bonding and attachment issue. That constituted an
acknowledgment by all parties that the bonding and attachment
issue was not a basis supporting temporary jurisdiction. MCR
5.974(E)(1). At the trial, the social worker admitted that
the respondent completed the substance-abuse program and an
independent-living program. She was employed,9 had secured
housing,10 and was able to care for herself. Her previous
substance abuse was no longer a problem and she had remained
9
The respondent’s independent-living supervisor, Alejita
Rodriguez, testified that respondent earned $1,400 a month.
10
At the time of the permanent-custody trial, the
respondent was living in a two-bedroom apartment, which she
procured on her own. It was appropriately furnished and
contained clothes and toys for the child.
5
free of controlled substances for over one year.11 Although
the respondent did not initially follow through with a
psychological evaluation when first referred 1½ years earlier,
she did follow through with the second referral in August
1999.12 The psychologist who conducted the evaluation found
nothing in her intellectual and psychological profiles that
prevented her from appropriately parenting the child.
The social worker’s new concern about the respondent’s
ability to parent related to her alleged lack of attachment
and bonding with the child. She testified that the respondent
did not interact appropriately with the child during visits.
According to the worker, the respondent sometimes had
difficulty engaging the child in activities, sometimes seemed
lethargic during portions of the visits, and sometimes
inappropriately brought candy to visits scheduled in the
morning.
Hoogeboom, the respondent’s therapist, opined that the
respondent and the child were bonded. She recommended that
the child be placed with the respondent. According to
Hoogeboom, the respondent appropriately disciplined the child
11
Despite this recognition that the respondent had
remained substance-free for over a year, the June 2000
permanent-custody petition erroneously alleged that the
respondent continued to use alcohol and drugs.
12
The respondent completed the two-part evaluation in
August 2000 after missing a December 1999 appointment.
6
and interacted with him by playing and singing with him.
Ywania Richardson, a therapist contacted by the foster
mother and paid by Catholic Social Services for the
respondent’s assessment, also testified at trial about the
bonding and attachment issue.13 Richardson met with the
respondent and the child on one occasion for approximately one
hour to evaluate their bonding. On the basis of this single
meeting, which took place less than one month after Hoogeboom
began addressing the bonding and attachment issue with the
respondent, Richardson opined that they did not have a well
attached, bonding relationship, but explained that this may
have resulted from the fact that the child had been in a
number of foster homes.14
At the conclusion of the permanent-custody trial, the
trial court terminated the respondent’s parental rights,
despite recognizing that the respondent had made significant
improvement. The respondent was drug-free, had graduated from
high school, had completed an independent-living course, and
obtained adequate housing and employment.
Nonetheless, the trial court held that the respondent’s
lack of bonding with, and attachment to, the child provided a
13
Catholic Social Services referred the respondent to
Richardson after the referral to Hoogeboom.
14
The child had resided in five different foster homes
during wardship.
7
basis for termination. To reach this conclusion, the court
gave greater weight to Holewinski’s and Richardson’s
testimony. The court discounted Hoogeboom’s testimony because
Hoogeboom did not specialize in treatment of the bonding and
attachment issue.
The respondent appealed by right to the Court of Appeals,
which affirmed.15 The respondent’s counsel filed a timely
application for leave to appeal with this Court and filed a
copy with the trial court the following day. Despite this,
and just two weeks after the respondent filed the application
and before this Court ruled on it (even before the date on the
notice of hearing in this Court), the trial court entered an
order making final the adoption of the child by the foster
parents.16
This Court initially denied leave to appeal in October
2002. The respondent subsequently filed a motion for
reconsideration, which we granted.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review for clear error both the trial court’s decision
that a ground for termination of parental rights has been
15
Unpublished memorandum opinion, issued March 1, 2002
(Docket No. 235602).
16
This Court was informed of the adoption after a remand
to the trial court in August 2002 for updated findings of
fact. The trial court filed its findings later that month.
8
proved by clear and convincing evidence and, where
appropriate, the court’s decision regarding the child’s best
interests. MCR 5.974(I);17 In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). A circuit court’s decision to
terminate parental rights is clearly erroneous if, although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
III. ANALYSIS
Parents have a significant interest in the companionship,
care, custody, and management of their children, and the
interest is an element of liberty protected by due process.
In re Brock, 442 Mich 101, 109; 499 NW2d 752 (1993). A due
process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of a
natural family is founded solely on a “best interests”
analysis that is not supported by the requisite proof of
parental unfitness. Quilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 255; 98
S Ct 549; 54 L Ed 2d 511 (1978).
A
The Legislature has enumerated specific conditions, one
17
The rules governing proceedings regarding juveniles
were amended and moved to new MCR subchapter 3.900, effective
May 1, 2003. The provisions on termination of parental rights
are now found in MCR 3.977. In this opinion, we will refer to
the rules in effect at the time of the lower-court decisions.
9
or more of which must be proved before a court is permitted to
terminate a parent’s rights to her child. MCL 712A.19b(3).
The petitioner bears the burden of establishing the existence
of at least one of those grounds by clear and convincing
evidence. Id.; Trejo, supra at 350. The circuit court in
this case relied on the following enumerated grounds to
terminate the respondent’s parental rights to her son:
(c) The parent was a respondent in a
proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more
days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial
dispositional order, and the court, by clear and
convincing evidence, finds either of the following:
* * *
(ii) Other conditions exist that cause the
child to come within the court’s jurisdiction, the
parent has received recommendations to rectify
those conditions, the conditions have not been
rectified by the parent after the parent has
received notice and a hearing and has been given a
reasonable opportunity to rectify the conditions,
and there is no reasonable likelihood that the
conditions will be rectified within a reasonable
time considering the child’s age.
* * *
(g) The parent, without regard to intent,
fails to provide proper care or custody for the
child and there is no reasonable expectation that
the parent will be able to provide proper care and
custody within a reasonable time considering the
child's age. [MCL 712A.19b(3).]
If the petitioner establishes a statutory ground for
termination, “the trial court must issue an order terminating
parental rights unless there exists clear evidence, on the
10
whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best
interests.” Trejo, supra at 354; MCL 712A.19b(5).
“Subsection 19b(5) attempts to strike the difficult balance
between the policy favoring the preservation of the family
unit and that of protecting a child’s right and need for
security and permanency.” Trejo, supra at 354.
The decision to terminate the respondent’s parental
rights was clearly erroneous. Pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)
(c)(ii), termination of parental rights is justified where (1)
the parent is the respondent in a child-neglect proceeding,
(2) other conditions exist that cause the child to come within
the court’s jurisdiction, (3) the parent received
recommendations to rectify those conditions and had a
reasonable opportunity to do so and the respondent failed to
rectify the other conditions, and (4) there is no reasonable
likelihood she will do so within a reasonable time given the
age of the child. The “other conditions” upon which the
trial court relied were the lack of a bond or attachment
between the mother and the child. However, we hold that the
petitioner did not establish the lack of such a bond or
attachment by clear and convincing evidence.
The respondent’s therapist met with her weekly. After
ample opportunity to observe the respondent and the child
interact, she opined that they were adequately bonded. She
11
recommended that the child be returned to the respondent’s
care. The respondent’s supervisor in the independent-living
program also found the respondent’s interaction with the child
to be appropriate. The psychologist who conducted the
respondent’s court-ordered evaluation found nothing in her
psychological makeup that prevented her from appropriately
parenting her child. By contrast, the therapist hired by
Catholic Social Services met with the child and the respondent
only once for approximately one hour. Her observation of the
respondent and the child occurred less than one month after
the respondent’s therapist began addressing the bonding and
attachment issue. Reliance on this one minimally informed
source rather than on the fully knowledgeable staff of persons
who had worked directly with the respondent over an extended
period was an insufficient basis for severing the parental
bond between mother and son.
In concluding that the respondent and her child were not
properly bonded, the trial court ignored the fact that,
immediately after the agency filed the petition for
termination of parental rights, visitation was automatically
suspended for several months pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(4). The
counselor was then notified only two months before trial18 to
18
The social worker first asked the counselor to address
the bonding and attachment issue in November 2000. The trial
began in January 2001.
12
address the bonding and attachment issue with the respondent.
Any suggestion that the respondent was given “a reasonable
opportunity” to rectify the alleged bonding and attachment
issue is unwarranted.
By discounting the testimony of Hoogeboom, the
respondent’s counselor, the trial court also ignored the fact
that it was the social worker who referred the respondent to
Hoogeboom for counseling on the bonding and attachment issue.
If the social worker truly believed that Hoogeboom’s
credentials were insufficient to address bonding and
attachment, it was that worker’s responsibility to make an
alternate referral. Despite Richardson’s alleged superior
credentials, the social worker never suggested that the
respondent receive treatment from her.
The fundamental right of a parent and child to maintain
the family relationship can be overcome only by clear and
convincing evidence, which, in this case, was not supplied by
this single witness who observed the mother and child together
for just one hour at a time when she had been addressing the
bonding and attachment issue in therapy for less than one
month.19
19
The social worker’s testimony also failed to establish
clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to
address her bonding and attachment issue. Rather, the social
worker’s testimony about the respondent’s occasional lethargy
and bringing candy to morning visits does not, in our
13
The second basis for the trial court’s order is MCL
712A.19b(3)(g), which permits termination where (1) the parent
fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and (2)
there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
able to do so within a reasonable time given the child’s age.
Again, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing
evidence of this ground. The social worker from Catholic
Social Services acknowledged that the mother had appropriate
housing and employment, was able to care for herself, had
completed an independent-living program, and remained drug
free for over one year. The respondent in this case fulfilled
every requirement of the parent-agency agreement. Her
compliance negated any statutory basis for termination.
This Court has held that a parent’s failure to comply
with the parent-agency agreement is evidence of a parent’s
failure to provide proper care and custody for the child.
Trejo, supra at 360-363. By the same token, the parent’s
compliance with the parent-agency agreement is evidence of her
ability to provide proper care and custody.20
judgment, rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence
required to permanently sever the bond between a parent and
her child.
20
If the agency has drafted an agreement with terms so
vague that the parent remains “unfit,” even on successful
completion, then the agreement’s inadequacies are properly
attributable to the agency and cannot form the basis for the
termination of parental rights. Even if, in some case, it can
14
There were no statutory grounds for terminating the
respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3).21
For that reason, we need not address the question whether
termination was in the best interests of the child. MCL
712A.19b(5). We conclude that the trial court “clearly erred”
by terminating respondent’s parental rights.22
be conceived that satisfaction by the parent of the parent
agency agreement does not render the parent “fit,” in this
case we are satisfied that the respondent’s satisfaction of
the agreement did evidence that she was no longer an “unfit”
parent.
21
Several of the trial court’s written findings of fact
on remand suggest that it may have been influenced by the
relative advantages of the adoptive home compared to the
mother’s home. We remind the family-division judges of what
we said nearly fifty years ago:
“It is totally inappropriate to weigh the
advantages of a foster home against the home of the
natural and legal parents. Their fitness as
parents and question of neglect of their children
must be measured by statutory standards without
reference to any particular alternative home which
may be offered to the [child].” [Fritts v Krugh,
354 Mich 97, 115; 92 NW2d 604 (1958).]
We note the trial court’s fact-finding on remand simply
because it suggests that improper comparisons between the
homes of the adoptive and natural parents may have been made
in determining whether to terminate the respondent’s parental
rights. This type of comparison may explain why the
respondent’s parental rights were terminated despite what we
believe is the lack of clear and convincing evidence in
support of that termination.
22
Despite the lack of evidence supporting the petition
for termination of the respondent’s parental rights, the trial
court terminated her rights and refused to return the child.
Consequently, the child was deprived of a secure and stable
home with his natural mother, a mother who had completed every
15
B
A parent whose rights to her child have been terminated
has the right to appeal that decision. Reist v Bay Circuit
Judge, 396 Mich 326; 241 NW2d 55 (1976).23 MCR 5.993(A)(2)
provides an appeal of right in the Court of Appeals for an
order terminating parental rights. The Adoption Code
prohibits a trial court from ordering an adoption if a parent
has filed an appeal of right from an order terminating her
parental rights until the Court of Appeals affirms the order
terminating parental rights. MCL 710.56(2).24
term of her parent-agency agreement and who had, according to
her own court-ordered therapist, successfully addressed her
alleged lack of bonding with, and attachment to, her child.
Rather than returning the child after the natural mother
completed every task asked of her, the agency delayed the
child’s security and stability with his own mother and sought
the opinion of a different therapist who claimed that the
respondent lacked the proper bonding and attachment to
properly parent her child.
23
In Reist, all the participating justices agreed that
parents have the right to appeal. The Court divided on the
basis for that right. Justices Levin, Kavanagh, and Williams
found that parents have a constitutional right to appeal.
Justices Coleman, Fitzgerald, and Lindemer, on the other hand,
found no need to address whether parents had a constitutional
right to appeal, as they found a basis for the appeal in the
relevant statute and court rule.
24
We acknowledge the accelerated pace at which circuit
courts in this state are now required to determine whether to
terminate the parental rights of a parent in a neglect
proceeding. MCL 712A.19a(1) requires a circuit court to hold
a permanency-planning hearing within one year after the child
is made a court ward. The federal adoption and safe families
act, 42 USC 675(5)(E), requires the filing of a petition for
permanent custody when a child has remained a family court
16
While the statute refers to affirmance by the Court of
Appeals, it must be read in conjunction with MCR 7.215(F),
which establishes the effective date of a Court of Appeals
opinion:
(1) Routine Issuance. Unless otherwise ordered
by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court or as
otherwise provided by these rules,
(a) the Court of Appeals judgment is effective
after the expiration of the time for filing a timely
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court, or, if such an application is filed, after
the disposition of the case by the Supreme Court
. . . .
In this case, the respondent filed a timely application
for leave to appeal to this Court within twenty-one days after
the date of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. MCR
7.302(C)(2). Thus, the trial court improperly allowed the
foster parents to adopt the child before the resolution of the
respondent’s application for leave to appeal.25 The judgment
ward for fifteen of the previous twenty-two months unless (i)
the child is being cared for by a relative, (ii) a state
agency has documented in a case plan a compelling reason for
finding that filing such a petition would not be in the best
interests of the child, or (iii) the state has not provided to
the child’s family such services as the state deems necessary
for the safe return of the child. In this case, the state did
not provide the respondent with the proper services necessary
for the safe return. The state agency referred the mother to
a therapist to deal with the bonding and attachment issue; the
therapist’s opinion (that the respondent had no problem in
this area) was later discounted.
25
At oral argument it was reported that the county
designated this as an “at risk” adoption. Apparently, this
adoption was labeled that because the county took a “risk”
17
of the Court of Appeals never became effective.
The trial court was without authority to ignore this
Court’s appellate jurisdiction by allowing the adoption to
take place while a timely application for leave to appeal was
pending in this Court. The adoption in this case was invalid
because it violated the provisions of MCL 710.56(2) and MCR
7.215(F). Further, to allow such an adoption to occur would
be to distort the nature of this Court’s review of the
termination decision by requiring, as an effective
precondition to reversal of the termination order of the trial
court, that we be prepared also to undo an adoption that has
become a fait accompli. Parents whose rights have been
terminated by the trial court are entitled to appellate review
of this decision without that review being compromised by the
specter of appellate courts having to undo an adoption as a
concomitant act to the granting of relief for those parents.
Such a result is simply contrary to the structure of the
justice system established by our constitution and laws.
The members of this Court have each reflected upon this
case at length. There is no ideal result. There is no
outcome that will avoid the imposition of suffering upon
that this Court might vacate the termination of parental
rights. We explicitly disapprove of this practice. Such an
“at risk” adoption does a disservice to all the parties
involved.
18
either the birth parent of this child or his present adoptive
parents. If there is a practical reason that adoptions not be
permitted while a parent is in the process of appealing a
termination decision, it is that reflected in the choices now
available to this Court in this case. It is in the interests
of both the natural parent and the child, as well as the
interests of the integrity of the justice system, that the
termination decision not be reviewed, as it has been here,
under the specter of having to remove the child from adoptive
parents in order to give faithful effect to the law. To say
the least, this Court has not taken this decision lightly.26
Rather, we are fully cognizant that it is an imperfect
decision and that it will have a significant effect on the
lives of everyone connected with this case.27 We conclude,
26
The premature adoption that occurred in this case was
a procedural anomaly, leading the Court to proceed with
caution. We remanded this case for an update on the status
and granted the respondent’s motion for reconsideration after
additional consideration. The deliberative process required
in this unusual case caused this Court to expend a greater
length of time than is usually necessary in appeals of
decisions regarding the termination of parental rights.
27
Although appeals from decisions terminating parental
rights are already decided on an expedited basis, MCR
5.993(C)(1), 7.212(A)(1)(i), and 7.212(A)(2)(a)(i),
significant efforts have been ongoing in this Court to further
expedite this process. This Court previously opened an
administrative file to address appellate delay and, in April
2002, we published for comment proposed rules that would
eliminate delayed applications for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court, effectively reducing the delay between the
rendering of a decision by the Court of Appeals and filing of
19
however, that the result reached is compelled by Michigan law
and that the values underlying this law are important in
upholding the family relationship.
In order to prevent this situation from recurring, we
hold that trial courts are not permitted to allow an adoption
of a child whose parents’ rights have been terminated while
the parents’ appeal of that termination is pending in either
the Court of Appeals or in this Court.28
an application for leave to appeal in this Court. Those
proposals will soon be ready for final action upon the receipt
of related proposals from the Court of Appeals, with which
they must be coordinated. In addition, this Court’s internal
administrative processing of cases has been modified to assure
the earliest possible Supreme Court consideration of these
cases. Further, in response to concerns about delay in the
Court of Appeals and a study from the National Center for
State Courts regarding dependency appeals, in August 2002, we
directed the Chief Judge and the Chief Clerk of the Court of
Appeals to convene a Dependency Appeals Task Force, including
representatives of affected courts and groups, to devise
methods for expediting dependency appeals. The task force’s
report was filed May 5, 2003.
As an offshoot of the task force on appellate-delay
reduction, discussions have also been initiated regarding the
need to address reducing trial-court delay in handling
termination cases. In response to the federal government’s
Child and Family Service Review of the Michigan foster-care
and adoption system, a work group comprised of family-division
judges and employees of the Family Independence Agency has
been appointed to address such delay.
28
MCL 712A.19c requires the trial court to hold a
posttermination review hearing, within ninety-one days of the
termination decision and at least every ninety-one days
thereafter. At these mandatory posttermination review
hearings, the court can monitor the progress of the parent’s
appeal and ensure that an adoption does not take place until
the parent’s right to appellate review has been exhausted.
20
IV. CONCLUSION
We reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the
Kent Circuit Court terminating the respondent’s parental
rights. Further, we vacate the order of adoption because it
is invalid. Finally, we order the Family Independence Agency
to commence appropriate efforts toward reunification of the
respondent and the child.
Maura D. Corrigan
Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
21
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
SUPREME COURT
In re JK, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v No. 121410
MELISSA KUCHARSKI,
Respondent-Appellant.
WEAVER, J. (nonparticipation statement).
I have decided not to participate in this case for the
following reasons:
•First, to expedite for the sake of the child this case,
which has been in the Supreme Court for over a year;1
•Second, to defer to the decisions of the respondent
party, the biological mother, and her attorney not to
1
After this case is completed, I will publish at my
personally funded website, JusticeWeaver.com, a proposed court
rule designed to shorten the appellate process and eliminate
appellate delays in cases involving the termination of
parental rights by ensuring that they will not be in the
appellate system for more than eleven months (eight months in
the Court of Appeals, three months in the Supreme Court) after
the claim of appeal is filed.
remit/waive any possible disqualification; and
•Third, to maintain public trust and confidence in the
judiciary.
There are no court rules establishing the procedure for
a Michigan Supreme Court justice’s decision whether or not to
refrain from participation in a case. Traditionally, the
decision has been left to the discretion of the individual
justices, and nothing has been revealed to the public.
I propose for public comment the following amendments of
Michigan Court Rule 2.003. These amendments provide that when
the issue of disqualification is raised, a justice should
publish in the record of the case the reasons for the decision
to participate in the case or not, and outline the procedure
for a justice to raise his potential disqualification with the
parties and their attorneys.
(C)(5)Disqualification of a Justice. If a
justice’s participation in a case is challenged by
a written motion or if the issue of participation is
raised by the justice or another justice, the
challenged justice shall decide the issue and
publish in the record of the case that justice’s
reasons for the decision to participate or not.
* * *
(D)(2)Procedure for a Justice. If it appears
that there may be grounds or possible grounds for
disqualification, the justice may have the clerk of
the supreme court send the parties the justice’s
written explanation of the grounds or possible
grounds for disqualification, and ask the parties
and their attorneys to consider whether to waive any
disqualification. If, following disclosure of any
2
grounds or possible grounds for disqualification
other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, the parties all notify the clerk of the
supreme court in writing that the justice should not
be disqualified, and the justice is then willing to
participate, the justice may participate in the
case.
I have in effect followed the above procedures in this case.
My decision not to participate in this case is based on
a communication that I had on Monday, April 28, 2003 with the
state’s central Family Independence Agency office in Lansing
regarding an issue raised by a justice at oral argument on
April 9, concerning the number of attachment and bonding
experts in Michigan—“Do you think there are 10,000 experts in
this field?”
The communication occurred at the end of a telephone
conversation with a staff person to the Governor’s Task Force
on Juvenile Justice (Children’s Justice Task Force), which I
chair. This staff person is employed by the state’s central
FIA office in Lansing with task force funds. The conversation
dealt with matters pertaining only to task force business
until the end, when in passing, I asked the staff person how
many experts on attachment and bonding there are in Michigan.
Although he did not know, he connected me to someone whom he
thought might know, a person who is also employed by the
state’s central FIA office in Lansing. After checking, this
person informed me that there may be two such experts in
3
Michigan and certainly not 10,000. Late on Monday, April 28,
I shared that information with the justices on the Court,
writing:
In a preliminary contact with the Family
Independence Agency in Lansing the agency indicated
that it was aware of two Michigan experts on bonding
and attachment. Ms. Richardson is one of those two
experts.
Chief Justice Corrigan contacted me late on Friday, May
2, and suggested that my communication with the state FIA
could be considered an ex parte communication, contrary to the
Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3. Although I believed this
communication was not an ex parte communication—that the
state’s central FIA office in Lansing is not a party in this
case because the Kent County division of the FIA filed the
petition and is a party in the case—as discussed below, I
recognized that it is a question of law and fact which has not
been decided by this Court.
Because the Chief Justice raised the question whether it
was an ex parte communication, and ex parte communications can
be grounds for disqualification, I believed the parties and
their attorneys had a right to know of the communication.
Late Friday, May 2, I contacted the Clerk of the Supreme Court
for the “proper procedure” to raise my possible
disqualification. Although Michigan Court Rule 2.003(D)
applies to trial judges and does not refer to Supreme Court
4
justices, this court rule sets out the procedure that seemed
to be possibly applicable. Pursuant to Michigan Court Rule
2.003(D) and Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3C and D, I
decided to contact the parties and attorneys and raise the
issue of my possible disqualification in this case.2
In an attempt to expeditiously resolve this issue, on
Tuesday, May 6, in accordance with the court rule, MCR
2.003(D), I had the Clerk of the Supreme Court send to the
parties and attorneys a letter detailing the substance of the
communication, stating that the information had been given to
the other justices, informing them that it did not appear that
the communication with the staff of the state’s central FIA in
2
Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3C provides, “A judge
should raise the issue of disqualification whenever the judge
has cause to believe that grounds for disqualification may
exist under MCR 2.003(B).”
Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3D provides, “A
disqualification of a judge may be remitted as provided by MCR
2.003(D).”
Michigan Court Rule 2.003(D)provides:
“If it appears that there may be grounds for
disqualification, the judge may ask the parties and
their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of
the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If,
following disclosure of any basis for
disqualification other than personal bias or
prejudice concerning a party, the parties without
participation by the judge, all agree that the
judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is
then willing to participate, the judge may
participate in the proceedings. The agreement
shall be in writing or placed on the record.”
5
Lansing had given or would give the Kent County FIA or their
attorney a procedural or tactical advantage, and stating that
I had not been prejudiced or biased by the communication or by
the information I received. I asked the parties and attorneys
whether they would waive or remit any possible
disqualification, and asked them to respond with that decision
in writing to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Mr. Corbin
Davis, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 9.
On Thursday May 8, the Kent County prosecutor,
representing the Kent County FIA office, and the
attorney/guardian ad litem for the child both sent in their
decision to remit any disqualification. Late Friday
afternoon, May 9, the attorney for the respondent party, the
biological mother, sent a letter stating that he had not been
in contact with his client, and that accordingly he was
declining to remit any disqualification. I requested the
Clerk of the Supreme Court to forward a copy of the attorney’s
letter to all the justices.3 Later that same day I had the
Clerk of the Supreme Court contact the attorney for the
biological mother by fax, informing him that he had the time
he needed to make contact with his client before making the
decision on whether to remit any disqualification. On Monday,
3
The Clerk of the Supreme Court did forward a copy of
the attorney’s letter to all the justices on Monday, May 12,
2003.
6
May 12, the biological mother’s attorney notified the Clerk of
the Supreme Court by faxed memorandum that he had communicated
with his client, and that she agreed with the decision not to
remit or waive any disqualification.
I continue to believe that the state’s central FIA office
in Lansing is not a party in a termination-of-parental-rights
case brought by a county FIA office. Nevertheless,
preliminary research does not reveal any decision by this
Court regarding whether the state central FIA office in
Lansing is a party in a case brought by a county FIA office.
This question is one of both law and fact. In order to
resolve it, this Court would need to hold an evidentiary
hearing and make a finding on this point. Such a hearing and
the time needed to make the legal decision would further delay
this case.
Accordingly, for all the above reasons, I am not
participating in this case.
Elizabeth A. Weaver
7
In Re JK
Boost your productivity today
Delegate legal research to Cetient AI. Ask AI to search, read, and cite cases and statutes.