|
No. 137653
| In re Jaden Taylor Lee, Minor. |
|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Department of Human Services, |
|
Kayla Lee Pelter-Nixon |
Petitioner-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Mackinac - Graham, W. Clayton) |
|
|
| Cheryl Lynn Lee, |
|
Nancy B. Lucas-Dean |
Respondent-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, |
|
Eric G. Blubaugh |
Intervening Respondent-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioner-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Intervening Respondent-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
American Indian Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Attorney General's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
State Bar of Michigan's Children's Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Cheryl Lee and her son, Jaden Lee, are both enrolled members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. As such, Jaden is an “Indian child” as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC 1903(4). Lee was 16 years old – and in foster care herself due to delinquency and child abuse and neglect – when she gave birth to Jaden on June 13, 1999. On July 9, 2007, the Michigan Department of Human Services sought termination of Lee’s parental rights to Jaden, citing Lee’s history with protective services. A 2000 petition resulted in Jaden being placed in foster care for several years, DHS noted, and Lee’s parental rights to three other children had been terminated. DHS cited MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), which provides that “The court may terminate a parent’s parental rights to a child if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, 1 or more of the following . . . (b) The child or a sibling of the child has suffered physical injury or physical or sexual abuse under 1 or more of the following circumstances . . . (i) The parent’s act caused the physical injury or physical or sexual abuse and the court finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that the child will suffer from injury or abuse in the foreseeable future if placed in the parent’s home.” Section 1912(d) of the ICWA provides that any party seeking termination of parental right to an Indian child under state law “shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.” The trial court terminated Lee’s parental rights to Jaden, finding that the criteria of MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) had been satisfied. The court then concluded that “there is insufficient proof on this record for the Court to make a finding that termination is not in the best interests of the child.” Finally, the court considered the requirements of MCR 3.980(D), which addresses “American Indian Children,” and requires that “the parental rights of a parent of an Indian child must not be terminated unless there is also evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that parental rights should be terminated because continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian will likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” The court held that MCR 3.980(D) had also been satisfied. Lee appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court in a split, unpublished opinion. While the majority concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in its findings, the dissent disagreed that DHS had complied with the “active efforts” requirement of 25 USC 1912(d). Moreover, the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee’s continued custody of Jaden “is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child,” the dissenting judge said. Lee appeals.
Top of Page
|
