No contest plea; MCR 3.971(D)(2); Assumption of jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2); Failure to advise respondent-father of his appellate rights under MCR 3.971(B)(6); Plain error review; Outcome-determinative prejudice; Distinguishing In re Ferranti; In re Pederson

Holding that respondent-father failed to show outcome-determinative prejudice, the court rejected his claim that his no contest plea should be vacated due to the trial court’s failure to advise him of his appellate rights under MCR 3.971(B)(6). The court first found that this case was not like “Ferranti, where the trial court completely failed to comply with MCR 3.971.” It was more similar to “Pederson where the trial court complied with MCR 3.971(B)(3), but not with a different subsection of MCR 3.971(B).” Thus, the court concluded that, as in Pederson, respondent had to show “outcome-determinative prejudice from the trial court’s error.” He did not challenge the existence of clear and convincing evidence to support terminating his parental rights or argue he would not have pled “no contest had he been informed of his right to appeal the adjudication following the order of disposition.” Rather, he suggested he might “have exercised that right had he been so informed because there was an inadequate factual basis for his plea.” The court disagreed with his assertion “there was not an adequate factual basis for his plea because there was no evidence that he used drugs in the children’s presence, or that they were otherwise aware of his drug use.” Contrary to his contention only two exhibits (positive drug tests) were admitted, there was a third exhibit – “the ‘social work contacts,’ establishing that respondent had the children in his care when the positive drug tests occurred. And the consumption of cocaine and methamphetamine at a time when the five children were placed in respondent’s home is enough to substantiate the allegations that his drug use placed” them at risk of harm, whether or not they were physically present when he “was under the influence. Further, the evidence supported the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction on the basis” of an unfit home environment under MCL 712A.2(b)(2). The court concluded that because there was a proper factual basis for his plea, he could not “show that an appeal on that basis following the adjudication would have been successful and so cannot establish outcome-determinative prejudice. Nor does he explain how the trial court’s failure to advise him of his appellate rights renders his plea involuntarily or unknowingly made.” Affirmed.