e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 85640
Opinion Date : 04/22/2026
e-Journal Date : 05/06/2026
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : In re Goodloe
Practice Area(s) : Native American Law Termination of Parental Rights
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Trebilcock, Boonstra, and Letica
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)/Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) notice; 25 USC § 1912(a); In re Morris; Termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i); Continuing conditions; In re Williams; Due process; Department-created grounds for termination; In re B & J; Reasonable reunification efforts; Alternative therapy; In re Sanborn; Child’s best interests; Permanency & stability; In re Olive/Metts Minors

Summary

The court held that conditional reversal was required because the trial court failed to comply with ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements, but respondent-mother’s remaining challenges to termination lacked merit. The case arose after respondent left the child (SG) with unknown people who were unwilling to care for him, while she continued to struggle with substance abuse, mental-health issues, and housing instability. The trial court terminated her parental rights under § (c)(i), among other grounds. On appeal, the court held that the father’s statement during his adjudication that SG’s grandmother was a recognized member of the Cherokee tribe triggered ICWA and MIFPA notice requirements, but “[n]othing in the record indicates” the DHHS notified the Cherokee tribe or documented notice as required. The court next held that § (c)(i) supported termination because respondent’s substance-abuse and mental-health conditions continued, she attended only about half of her screens and therapy appointments, tested positive at all screens she attended, and failed to obtain adequate housing. The court also held that the DHHS did not create the grounds for termination because her “delayed participation and lack of engagement in services overall demonstrated that respondent created the circumstances that led to termination.” It further held that reasonable efforts were made because services were offered and respondent failed to show she “‘would have fared better if other services had been offered.’” Finally, the court held that termination was in SG’s best interests because the foster home provided permanency, stability, and finality, and SG wanted to stay there. Conditionally reversed and remanded for ICWA and MIFPA compliance.

Full PDF Opinion