Validity of pleas entered during the adjudicative phase; Advice as to the consequences of the pleas; MCR 3.971(B); Distinguishing In re Ferranti; In re Pederson; Plain error review

Finding this case was similar to Pederson, the court held that respondents-parents did not establish plain error affecting their substantial rights. They could not show the trial court’s failure to advise them “their pleas could be used against them during a subsequent termination hearing” prejudiced them. Their only argument was that the order terminating their parental rights should be vacated because their pleas during the adjudicative phase were invalid. The court reviewed this unpreserved argument for plain error. While they cited Ferranti in asserting “that any deviation from the advice of rights identified in MCR 3.971(B) is a ground for automatic reversal[,]” the court found that Ferranti could not be read so broadly. And in contrast to this case, the facts there revealed “a wholesale failure to comply with the requirements of MCR 3.971(B).” The court found Pederson “more instructive because it addresses the situation where a trial court fails to fully advise a respondent of the consequences of a plea, MCR 3.971(B)(4), but substantially complies with the requirements of MCR 3.971 in all other respects, particularly MCR 3.971(B)(3).” It noted that the plea proceedings in this case “were slightly unconventional as they unfolded over the course of three hearings . . . .” However, as in Pederson, “respondents were advised of the rights set forth in MCR 3.971(B)(3),” and they did not challenge this. Their only issue was that the trial court did not inform them “their pleas could be used against them during a later termination hearing.” The record showed they were advised “consistent with the overwhelming majority of requirements of MCR 3.971(B). Most important to the adjudicative phase, the court fully complied with MCR 3.971(B)(3).” Similar to Pederson, they were advised “of all of the rights they would be waiving,” and also as in Pederson, the hearing transcripts showed they “fully discussed the case with their attorneys and had reviewed the allegations in the petition. Further, respondents confirmed that they were entering the pleas of their own free will.” And it was apparent that they understood “they were giving up a right to an adjudication trial before entering their pleas.” In addition, the record showed the trial court did not rely “on respondent-mother’s admission or respondent-father’s no-contest plea” in terminating their rights. Affirmed.