Reasonable reunification efforts; MCL 712A.19a(2); MCR 3.977; Aggravated circumstances; MCL 722.638; Effect of a no-contest plea; In re MJC

The court held that the trial court erred by concluding the DHHS did not have to make reasonable reunification efforts based on its finding of aggravated circumstances. The court agreed with respondent-mother that the DHHS failed to make reasonable reunification efforts in the absence of aggravated circumstances. There was no evidence of reunification efforts or any case plan in the record, and while there was testimony “that respondent was referred for parenting classes, the only real” mention was from respondent at the “best interests hearing that she participated in parenting classes since November, with no progress notes or testimony from caseworkers.” Further, she was correct “that she does not meet any of the circumstances listed in MCL 712A.19a(2)(b), like murder of a child or placement on the sex offender registry. The only mention of specific aggravated circumstances” was the trial court’s finding “following the preliminary hearing that reasonable efforts were not required to prevent the children’s removal from the home with regard to both respondent and the putative father as provided in MCL 722.638(1) and (2), and evidenced by the ‘[u]nfit home, failure to protect, dependency, abandonment, [and] severe physical abuse[.]’” The court noted that abandonment “only relates to the children’s putative father, as respondent’s leaving the children home alone for a night, on its own, is not tantamount to abandonment. And, although [she] does not make this argument specifically, the petition on which the [trial] court’s finding was based, and to which respondent waived any challenge, provides only that” one of the children “suffered a skull fracture of unknown cause, not that the injury was caused by abuse perpetrated by a parent, guardian, custodian, or other adult residing at the home.” Indeed, there was testimony “that doctors could not rule out or definitely conclude the skull fracture was the result of abuse, which is uncontradicted and confirmed by other evidence in the record, including [the child’s] medical records and the CPS investigation report. Nor does MCL 722.638(2) affect our conclusion on the basis of any argument that respondent failed to take reasonable steps to eliminate the skull fracture risk, because where a petition is not mandated under subsection (1), subsection (2) does not apply.” As such, the record did not support the trial “court’s finding that MCL 722.638(1) and (2) applied to respondent.” It also showed that the trial “court did not explain to respondent that pleading no contest to statutory grounds would preclude a challenge to reasonable efforts.” And there was “no indication that physical injury or abuse under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (ii) equates to abuse which includes” the aggravated circumstances in MCL 722.638(1)(a)(iii) and (v). Reversed and remanded.