Failure to comply with the requirements of MCR 3.977; Skipping the statutory-grounds analysis & the best interest analysis

Holding that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of MCR 3.977, the court vacated its order denying termination of respondent-father’s parental rights to his children, EF, IF, and AF, and remanded. The “trial court noted its extensive years of experience and gave an in-depth explanation of the standards of review applicable to child protective proceedings. It gave both a layman’s description and a quotation from this Court to explain what ‘clear and convincing evidence’ entails. However, [it] never provided findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision to allow father to retain his parental rights.” Likewise, although it “made a brief note about the accusations of sexual assault by GS, it never once mentioned father’s children, EF, IF, and AF, who were named in the petition.” The trial “court then announced its decision to dismiss the petition for termination, apparently finding (without making findings) that there were no statutory grounds under MCL 712A.19b(3) to terminate father’s parental rights. In the written order that followed the hearing, the trial court only stated that statutory grounds existed for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the children. No further explanation of the decision to dismiss the petition for termination was included.” The court noted that “MCR 3.977(I)(1) and (2) require the trial court to explain why the termination of parental rights is improper and to give ‘brief, definite, and pertinent findings’ in support of that decision.” While the court did “not expect or require the trial court to give a detailed explanation of its ruling, the trial court in this matter erred by failing to present any findings of fact or conclusions of law, either on the record or in writing, to support its determination.” It appeared “that the trial court held the adjudicative hearing where GS and respondent testified and found the preponderance of the evidence to take jurisdiction of the three children, but it never moved to the dispositional phase of the initial hearing where it would accept evidence regarding whether one of the statutory grounds for termination existed; it simply dismissed the ‘permanent custody’ request without explanation.” The court held that “the trial court completely ‘skipped’ the statutory-grounds analysis and the best interest analysis in violation of MCR 3.977(E) and (I).” The court retained jurisdiction.