Notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) & Michigan’s Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA); In re Morris; In re Williams; When the notice requirements were triggered; “Removal”; In re Detmer/Beaudry; Safe-harbor provision (MCL 712B.19); “Active efforts” requirement; MCR 3.002(1); Timing & sufficiency

The court held that respondent-mother failed to show error as to the notice requirements of the ICWA and MIFPA. She also did not show error as to the timing or sufficiency of the required active efforts to prevent the breakup of her family. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order authorizing the petition as to her children. She first argued that the trial court reversibly erred by proceeding on a removal petition without complying with the notice provisions of the ICWA and MIFPA. The court noted that Morris makes it clear that “the ICWA-notice requirements apply only to involuntary foster-care placements. Before CPS was involved with the family, respondent voluntarily placed the children with” their maternal grandmother, “and this voluntary placement continued until respondent revoked her consent to” it at the preliminary hearing in 5/25. Thus, because the placement was voluntary until then, “ICWA’s notice requirement was not yet implicated.” And by the time it was triggered, “DHHS had already sent the required notices to the relevant tribes and the [trial] court had received the green return receipt cards more than 10 days before the hearing.” Thus, respondent failed to show the trial court erred in concluding “DHHS complied with ICWA’s notice requirements.” The court noted that “the distinction between voluntary and involuntary proceedings is not present in the text of MIFPA[.]” Under MCL 712B.9(2), the trial “court was not permitted to hold a proceeding regarding a foster care placement, i.e., the removal of the children from respondent’s care, until 10 days after receiving the green return receipt card from the tribes.” However, by the time the children were removed from respondent’s “care under the definition in Detmer/Beaudry, the MIFPA-notice requirements were satisfied.” As to her claim regarding the timing of the required active efforts, the court found that she was not entitled to relief given that she did not challenge the trial “court’s conclusion under MCL 712B.19 that continued custody was appropriate because of the substantial and immediate danger to the children if returned to her care.” Finally, the court found that “the testimony presented at the preliminary hearing indicated that DHHS completed the active efforts required by both ICWA and MIFPA.”