The Court reversed the trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances because under MCL 722.638(1)(a), a court may bypass reunification and consider termination of parental rights at the outset only when a parent has already abused the child or the child’s sibling, not when there is anticipatory abuse or where the sibling is not biological.

The Michigan Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was not required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family because the respondent-parent subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, as defined under MCL 722.638(1) and (2), by facilitating criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, even though the parent did not personally commit the act.

An order terminating the respondent-mother’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing must be reversed because the trial court’s analysis was “flawed,” the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s order terminating Respondent-Mother’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2). DHHS failed to plead aggravated circumstances, and also failed to provide facts supporting their request for termination at initial disposition.

The COA vacated the trial court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights because mother’s drug use during pregnancy does not qualify as an aggravated circumstance.

The MI SCT is considering whether to hear the case of a mother whose parental rights were terminated after the trial court agreed with the petitioning agency that she had subjected her children to “aggravated circumstances”.

Call it a pet peeve of mine, but it annoys me when the COA miscites case law. Too many times, the COA miscites In re HRC for the proposition that services are not required if termination is the goal.