Due process; Advice of rights under MCR 3.971; In re Pederson; Right to appeal a child’s removal; MCR 3.965(B)(15); Placement; MCR 3.965(C)(2); Reasonable reunification efforts

The court held that respondent-mother was not entitled to reversal based on the trial court’s explanation of her rights under MCR 3.971, that it properly advised her of her right to appeal the child’s (A) removal, and that the DHHS made reasonable reunification efforts. Thus, it affirmed the order terminating her parental rights. “The trial court properly advised respondent at both the preliminary hearing and at the pretrial hearing about her right to appeal.” It did not specifically advise her “of her right to a court-appointed attorney in order to appeal the adjudication.” But there was no indication she “was unable to speak with her attorney about her right to appeal, of which the trial court advised respondent on at least two occasions.” There was no reason to believe she “would have been more likely to appeal had she thought that she had the right to have two separate court-appointed attorneys.” Further, she failed to indicate on what “grounds she would have appealed the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction.” This case was similar to Pederson – the trial court “advised respondent of most of her rights, including the right to appeal the trial court’s orders, and respondent had a court-appointed attorney at all times during the case. There is no indication that respondent’s plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made or that the trial court’s advice of rights affected the adjudicative or dispositional stage of the proceedings;” thus, she did not establish prejudice. In addition, there “was significant evidence supporting the original exercise of jurisdiction[.]” As to MCR 3.965(B)(15), the referee properly advised her of her right to appeal A’s removal during the preliminary exam and the pretrial hearing. While respondent asserted A should have been placed with her maternal grandmother, the DHHS pursued this before and after the maternal grandmother moved out of the state, “but she failed to attend the planned meeting. The trial court made all the appropriate findings pursuant to MCR 3.965(C)(2) for removal before ordering a foster-care placement . . . .” As to reunification efforts, she was discharged from parenting programs due to no-shows, “left inpatient treatment programs early and did not participate in other treatment programs.” There was no indication that “the DHHS failed to tailor services to her needs.”