Ineffective assistance of counsel; Custody proceeding; Haller v Haller

The court held that because this case was a custody proceeding, not a child protective proceeding, defendant-mother did not have a constitutional right to counsel and thus, could not obtain relief based on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The case began with a child protective proceeding involving defendant and her child. Plaintiff-father declared his paternity of the child, who was placed with him. He later filed a complaint under the Child Custody Act, seeking sole legal and physical custody. Defendant’s “appointed counsel filed an appearance in the custody matter” but did not file an answer. Eventually the trial court granted plaintiff’s “motion for entry of a default and entered the proposed custody and parenting time order[.]” On appeal, defendant argued that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that she may bring that claim because this was a child protective proceeding. But while this “custody action arose from the child protective proceeding, mother does not challenge the outcome of that proceeding.” She also did not “challenge the trial court’s entry of a default or its award of custody to father. Her sole issue on appeal is a claim of ineffective assistance in her custody case. Haller held that a party does not have a due-process right to counsel in custody proceedings[.]” Affirmed.