Termination at the initial disposition; When reasonable reunification efforts are not required; MCL 712A.19a(2); Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638(1); Plain error review; In re Walters

The court held that the trial court plainly erred in terminating respondent-father’s “parental rights at the initial disposition, without first providing reasonable efforts toward reunification or finding aggravating circumstances[.]” It noted that the parties did not raise, “and the trial court did not address, whether DHHS established an exception to its responsibility to attempt reunification.” Thus, the issue was unpreserved and the court reviewed it for plain error affecting substantial rights. It was “clear that none of the exceptions to DHHS’s duty to provide reasonable efforts toward reunification” applied here. The “DHHS did not cite MCL 712A.19a(2) or MCL 722.638 in its petition, and the trial court did not cite” either statute in the termination order. There was also no evidence that respondent abused the child or a sibling of the child, or that his “parental rights to another child were ever terminated,” In addition, he “was never convicted of any charges listed in MCL 712A.19a(2)(b), or ordered to register as a sex offender[.]” As to plain error, the court held in Walters “that the interpretation of MCL 722.638 and MCL 712A.19a(2) are clearly provided by the statutes’ plain language; therefore, this is not an issue that is subject to a reasonable dispute.” It further found in Walters “that when a trial court improperly failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts, ‘the trial court’s error prejudiced [the respondent] because (1) it is unclear how an aggrieved respondent could establish outcome-determinative error concerning the denial of reunification services altogether and (2) the error improperly dispensed with a critical aspect of a child protective proceeding—the requirement to offer reunification services before terminating parental rights—affected the very framework within which this case progressed, undermined the foundation of the rest of the proceedings, and impaired respondent’s fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control over her children.’” And as it concluded in Walters, this “‘analysis of the plain error rule’s third prong applies equally to any case in which a court erroneously terminates a parent’s rights in the absence of aggravating circumstances.’” Reversed and remanded. The court directed that on remand, the “DHHS shall prepare a case service plan, and the trial court shall order that reasonable” reunification efforts be made.