in Re G D Bishop Minor ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •             If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
    revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
    STATE OF MICHIGAN
    COURT OF APPEALS
    UNPUBLISHED
    In re BISHOP, Minor.                                                December 3, 2019
    No. 349148
    Wayne Circuit Court
    Family Division
    LC No. 15-519604-NA
    Before: METER, P.J., and JANSEN and GLEICHER, JJ.
    GLEICHER P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
    The majority holds that “the petitioner is not required to provide reunification services
    when termination of parental rights is the agency’s goal.” For the reasons cogently stated by
    Judge Jane BECKERING in In re LD Rippy, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2019) (Docket
    No. 347809), slip op at 4-6, (BECKERING, J, dissenting), I respectfully disagree with this
    statement. As Judge BECKERING’s dissenting opinion describes, this proposition, frequently
    repeated though it is in this Court’s caselaw, incorrectly describes the law. Like in the child’s
    game of “telephone,” the actual legal principle at the heart of the statement has morphed into an
    inaccurate, shortcut message. As Judge BECKERING explains, the principle is this: reasonable
    efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases except those involving
    aggravated circumstances. See In re Mason, 
    486 Mich 142
    , 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). See
    also In re Hicks/Brown, 
    500 Mich 79
    , 85; 893 NW2d 637 (2017) (instructing that “[u]nder
    Michigan’s Probate Code, the Department has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to
    reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights,” except if “certain enumerated
    exceptions” exist).
    One such enumerated exception is: “The parent has had rights to the child’s siblings
    involuntarily terminated and the parent has failed to rectify the conditions that led to that
    termination of parental rights.” MCL 712A.19a(2)(c). The evidence clearly and convincingly
    supports this aggravated circumstance. I would hold that reasonable efforts were unnecessary in
    this case, and that therefore respondent has not demonstrated that petitioner erred by failing to
    investigate placement with her mother.
    /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
    -1-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 349148

Filed Date: 12/3/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2019