Michigan – Case Summary from Speaker Law Firm, PLLC

Facts:

In October 2019, CPS was contacted by hospital staff when Mother refused to retrieve NRH, who has multiple mental health diagnoses, from the hospital. A CPS worker testified that she contacted Mother and Mother agreed to pick up NRH from the hospital. CPS was contacted again in November 2019, with the same complaint of Mother having left NRH at the hospital. A family team meeting was held with Mother and Mother told CPS that she had left NRH at the hospital because NRH needed more help with his mental health problems.  Mother also told CPS that she had been evicted and was homeless. At the hearing, Mother testified that NRH was taking three medications and receiving in-home therapy twice a week until the family was evicted in October 2019. When Mother was evicted, she placed NRH with a family friend and his brother, MH, in relative care. However, the same day as the placement that friend called the police because NRH threatened to harm her 11-year-old grandson. NRH threatened suicide when the police arrived, and the officer took NRH to the hospital again. Additionally, NRH has had other mental health episodes that have involved CPS.  

At a combined adjudicatory and dispositional hearing, Mother testified that the reason she had refused to take NRH home at that time until he received the help he needed and because she was homeless. The trial court determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction over NRH. The trial court held that Mother “failed to provide proper and necessary support and care for [NRH], who was subject to a substantial risk of harm to his mental health and wellbeing.” The court’s conclusion was based on a finding that Mother refused to pick up NRH when the hospital determined him ready to be discharged. 

COA Opinion: 

Culpability is not a prerequisite for probate court intervention under MCL 712A.2(b); however, the Court of Appeals believes the Michigan Legislature should develop policies where the State should provide different avenues for parents other than having the trial court assuming jurisdiction over the child. 

The Court of Appeals began its analysis by citing MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2), which provides the conditions in which the trial court has jurisdiction over a juvenile under 18 years of age. After citing the statute, the Court acknowledged the extremely difficult position Mother found herself in, stating “She had no home. She had child whose mental health issues were significant. She wanted the kind of care for NRH that he only began to get when the state assumed jurisdiction.” The Court bemoaned the fact that the word used to describe these situations is “unfit”, as “unfit” implies wrongdoing by the parent, which is not what occurred in this case. Additionally, due to this ruling, Mother is put on a registry for persons who acted to harm their children, when she is doing the opposite. The Court of Appeals made a plea to the Michigan Legislature, acknowledging “[t]he scant and costly resources available for mental health care for children likely places other parents in the same situation as [Mother]. We can only look to our policy makers for a resolution to this conundrum.”  

The Court then pivots to their ruling under the current statutory system. It notes that in Matter of Sterling, 162 Mich App 328, 339; 412 7NW2d 284 (1987), the Court determined that, under MCL 712A.2(b), culpability is not a prerequisite for probate court intervention. It is important to note that even though the Court of Appeals relies on Sterling, that case is not binding on the Court of Appeals as the decision was issued before November 1, 1990. MCR 7.215(J). However, the Court found that Mother admitted an inability, not an unwillingness to care for NRH’s special needs and is therefore statutorily unfit. It affirmed the trial court decision to exercise jurisdiction over NRH.   

Commentary:

Many experts in child welfare law have commented on the holding in this case. The conundrum for indigent parents that this case presents is if they have a child in need of mental health treatment, DHHS will not petition to take jurisdiction at a parent’s request to provide the mental health treatment the child needs. What is a parent to do? Some commentators have suggested that this situation should be included in the dependency portion of the child welfare statute, MCL 712A.2(b)(3). This would allow for a court to assume jurisdiction, without placing the parent on the central registry, and still providing help to the child. Some commentators believe that providing mental health treatment to children should not result in entry into the child welfare system. The ultimate solution for this problem is for Michigan to adopt a more comprehensive health care system, which would provide mental health coverage for indigent children. This would remove the need for the Mother in this case to go to absurd lengths to get NRH the help he needs.  

[Posted by Lori DeVries]