Claim of ineffective assistance by a lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL); MCL 712A.17c(7); Standing; In re EP

Holding that respondent-father lacked standing to challenge the LGAL’s representation of the child, the court affirmed the order terminating his parental rights. It noted that “MCL 712A.17c(7) provides that the trial court must appoint an LGAL for the child (or children) in child protective proceedings. The LGAL thus has a duty to provide effective assistance of counsel to the child—not the parents.” Further, given that “‘the right to effective assistance of counsel is a constitutional one, it is personal to the child and [a] respondent [in a child protective proceeding] may not assert it on behalf of the child.’” Respondent failed to acknowledge that he lacked standing to assert the ineffective assistance claim and offered “no argument that he should have standing.” As a result, he provided “no compelling reason that justifies distinguishing the case from binding precedent.” Thus, the court followed “the established precedent that parents lack standing to challenge whether their child received effective assistance of counsel” and declined to reach the merits of his claim.