Appointment of a successor guardian ad litem (GAL); MCR 3.916(A); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to advise respondent of her Fifth Amendment rights; Failure to investigate/obtain an expert witness; Denial of an oral motion for substitution of lawyer

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint a successor GAL. Also, respondent-mother could not establish that her lawyer provided constitutionally deficient assistance, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied her request for the substitution of her lawyer. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her children. Respondent argued “that the trial court erred by failing to immediately appoint a successor [GAL] to represent her interests after the first GAL withdrew due to scheduling conflicts.” The trial court “noted that, in the absence of a motion from respondent or petitioner, it would not appoint a successor GAL ‘at this time.’ [It] explained that respondent was represented by a court-appointed lawyer ‘who has not raised any concerns about the ability to communicate with [her].’ The [trial] court found that there was no ‘need in this matter’ for the appointment of a successor GAL.” The court found no abuse of discretion given “that there was nothing on the record indicating that there was a need for a replacement GAL at the time that the first GAL withdrew[.]” As to her ineffective assistance claims, the court concluded “that respondent’s lawyer’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness when she failed to advise respondent of her constitutional rights before she testified.” But it determined that respondent “failed to establish that, but for her lawyer’s deficient performance, the outcome of the child-protective proceedings would have been different.” As to the substitution of counsel issue, the denied request “was respondent’s third such oral request. The [trial] court had previously accommodated her requests. In denying” this one, it “considered the fact that the request was made in the middle of the ongoing adjudication trial, and granting a substitution would prejudice respondent and cause an undue delay in the proceedings.”