The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA); The Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA); Removal of an Indian child; Active efforts; MCR 3.967(D); MCL 712B.15(2)-(4); Appellate-rights advice after removal; MCR 3.965(B)(15); In re Barber/Espinoza; No-contest plea; Appellate-rights advice after adjudication; MCR 3.971(B)(6)-(8); Jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(b); In re Jacobs

The court held that the trial court erred by failing to advise respondent of her appellate rights at the removal and adjudication stages, but the errors did not affect her substantial rights. The child (UC) was removed after DHHS raised concerns about housing instability, possible transfer of the child to an unverified person in Canada, and respondent’s conduct at a shelter. She later pled no contest to the jurisdictional allegations, and the trial court eventually terminated her parental rights. On appeal, the court first held that the failure to advise respondent of her appeal rights was “clear or obvious error” because MCR 3.965(B)(15) provides that the court “shall advise” a parent of the right to appeal removal, and MCR 3.971(B)(6)-(8) similarly required advice of appellate rights after her no-contest plea. But the court concluded she did not show prejudice. As to removal, the “most critical fact” was that UC faced an “imminent and substantial risk of harm” because respondent repeatedly expressed an intent to send the child to live with a person in a foreign country whose identity and claimed credentials DHHS could not confirm. The court also rejected respondent’s active-efforts challenge under the ICWA and MIFPA, reasoning that MCR 3.967(D) required findings but “does not require the trial court to state its findings in a particular way or sequence.” Finally, the court concluded any challenge to jurisdiction would not have changed the result because allegations of abuse, instability, and lack of parenting skills “would be substantial and sufficient” to support jurisdiction. Affirmed.