Child protective proceedings; Child’s placement under a juvenile guardianship; MCL 712A.19a(9); MCR 3.979(A) & (B); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Recommendation to stipulate to a change in permanency planning goal from termination to juvenile guardianship

Holding that the trial court failed to comply with the relevant statutory and court rule requirements when it placed respondent-mother’s child in a juvenile guardianship, the court vacated the order doing so and remanded for a guardianship hearing. The court first rejected respondent’s claim that her attorney was ineffective for recommending that she stipulate to a “change in permanency planning goal from termination to juvenile guardianship and” for not challenging the related finding that the DHHS was not obliged to create a case service plan. The stipulation allowed respondent to avoid termination of her parental rights, which impacted not only the child at issue here but also her child born after these proceedings began. However, the court agreed with respondent that the trial court failed to comply with the statutes and court rules governing juvenile guardianships. First, it failed “to place its best-interest findings on the record. At the final permanency planning hearing, the trial court stated that a guardianship was ‘appropriate.’ But [it] neglected to explain which factors supported a determination that the appointment of a guardian was in” the child’s best interests. The statutory scheme required it “to base its guardianship decision on the child’s best interests, which inherently necessitates articulating those findings.” In addition, it erred in granting “the guardianship without conducting a hearing pursuant to MCR 3.979(B).” The court noted that the “stipulation addressed a change in DHHS’s goal, it did not extinguish respondent-mother’s right to challenge a guardianship. And, in fact, she did challenge the guardianship.” While the trial court stated at one point “that it would conduct a separate guardianship hearing, which would have” allowed respondent to exercise her right to challenge the guardianship, “the trial court did not conduct another hearing before it entered the ex parte guardianship order. Thus, [it] erroneously implemented the guardianship without giving [her] the opportunity to protect her fundamental interests.”