Adoption; Section 39 hearing; MCL 710.39; In re BKD; Adoption proceedings priority; MCL 710.25(1) & (2); Distinguishing In re MKK; Consent validity; Direct-placement adoption; MCL 710.44; Order of filiation; Stay of paternity action; In re MGR; Intervention; In re LMB

The court held that the trial court erred by failing to conduct the required Section 39 hearing, improperly delaying and dismissing the adoption proceeding, and improperly allowing the paternity case to proceed to an order of filiation while the adoption matter was pending. This case involved a child born to a 13-year-old mother, whose out-of-court consent placed the child with prospective adoptive parents. The 16-year-old putative father later filed a paternity complaint after the adoption petition had already been filed. The trial court adjourned and delayed the adoption matter for months, refused to accept the mother’s consent, dismissed the adoption petition, entered an order of filiation in the paternity case, and denied the prospective adoptive parents’ motion to intervene and stay that case. On appeal, the court held that the trial court was required to follow the prior remand order because it provided that the trial court “shall schedule a hearing pursuant to MCL 710.39[.]” It emphasized that “‘[t]he use of the word “shall” constitutes clear language designating a mandatory course of conduct . . . .’” The court next held that no good cause existed to delay the adoption proceeding because the putative father “failed to take any action to assert his rights” for months and “did not file his complaint for paternity until” 6/18/24 (almost six months after the child was born and placed with the prospective adoptive parents). The court further held that the record did not support the trial court’s conclusion that the mother’s consent was involuntary because the record failed to indicate that the mother “suffered from post-partum depression” and failed to “substantiate the [trial] court’s concern that ‘the consent was not freely and voluntarily given.’” Finally, the court held that the order of filiation was improperly entered and that the motion to intervene and stay should have been granted. Vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded.