Chapter 10: Pleas of Admission or No Contest

10.1   When Respondent May Make a Plea of Admission or
No Contest       10-2

10.2   Requirements Before Court Can Accept Plea       10-4

10.3   Records of Plea Proceedings       10-8

10.4   Withdrawal of Pleas       10-9

10.5   Combined Adjudicative and Dispositional Hearings       10-9

In this chapter. . .

A respondent may enter a plea of admission or no contest to allegations contained in a petition. If the court accepts a respondent’s plea, the court takes jurisdiction over the child or children involved in the case. This chapter sets out the rules governing the taking of pleas of admission or no contest. It discusses when a plea may be entered, required advice of rights, and establishing a factual basis for a plea. The effect of a plea by one respondent, but not the other, is also noted.

A parent may consent to the termination of his or her parental rights. See Section 17.8.

10.1​When Respondent May Make a Plea of Admission or No Contest

An individual involved in a child protective proceeding may be eligible for admission to a family treatment court program if, among other requirements, “the individual has a substance use disorder,” MCL 600.1099ee(a), and “[t]he allegations contained in the petition [are] related to the abuse, illegal use, or possession of a controlled substance or alcohol,” MCL 600.1099ff(a). See Section 7.7 for information about family treatment courts.

“A respondent may make a plea of admission or of no contest to the original allegations in the petition.” MCR 3.971(A).

With an amended petition,¹ however, the court has the discretion whether to permit a respondent to enter a plea of admission or no contest. MCR 3.971(A). The plea may be taken at any time after the authorization of a petition if:

(1) the petitioner and the child’s attorney are notified of the plea offer to the amended petition; and

(2) the petitioner and the child’s attorney are given an opportunity to object before the plea is accepted. MCR 3.971(A).

A.​Plea Must Be By Respondent

The plea of admission or no contest to the allegations in the petition must be made by the respondent. In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 670 (2008). A respondent is “the parent, guardian, legal custodian, or nonparent adult who is alleged to have committed an offense against a child.” MCR 3.903(C)(12). An offense against a child is “an act or omission by a parent, guardian, nonparent adult, or legal custodian asserted as grounds for bringing the child within the jurisdiction of the court” under the Juvenile Code. MCR 3.903(C)(9).

In In re SLH, 277 Mich App at 670, the trial court erred in finding jurisdiction over the children based on the mother’s plea to a petition that alleged only that she found the respondent having sex with their child and that the respondent admitted as much. Reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals concluded:

“The petition does not allege that the mother permitted, or failed to prevent, the alleged sexual abuse from occurring. Therefore, although the mother was a ‘party’ to the proceeding, by definition, she was not a respondent. Because only a respondent may enter a plea and the mother was not a respondent, she could not enter a plea.

* * *

At trial, the mother certainly could testify regarding what she witnessed and the alleged admission by respondent, but these could not be the basis for a plea, because they involve no wrongdoing by her. Although the failure of one parent to protect a child from abuse or neglect by the other parent can be grounds for taking jurisdiction over the child, in this case the petition did not allege that the mother failed to protect her daughters, and the court’s belief that ‘there’s a suggestion there was a failure to protect this child from inappropriate behavior from her father’ is insufficient to serve as an allegation against the mother if it is not contained in the petition. Only allegations contained in the original, or amended, petition can be the basis for jurisdiction.” In re SLH, 277 Mich App at 670-671.

B.​Plea by One Respondent-Parent Does Not Extend Court’s Jurisdiction to Unadjudicated Second Parent

Although “courts may assume jurisdiction over a child on the basis of the adjudication of one parent[,]” procedural “due process requires that every parent receive an adjudication hearing before the state can interfere with his or her parental rights.” In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 412 n 8, 415 (2014) In In re Sanders, the Court of Appeals found the one-parent doctrine² unconstitutional and vacated the trial court’s order that limited the unadjudicated parent’s contact with his children and required that he comply with a service plan following the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the children based on the respondent-mother’s no contest plea to allegations of child neglect and abuse and remanded the case to the trial court. Id. at 402-403, 422-423. For additional information on the procedural due process rights of the unadjudicated parent, see Section 4.3(C)(2). For a discussion on the dispositional phase of child protective proceedings, see Chapter 13.

Note: The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the one-parent doctrine violates a nonadjudicated parent’s due process rights, In re Sanders, 495 Mich at 412, 422, applies retroactively “to all cases pending on direct appeal at the time [Sanders] was decided.” In re Kanjia, 308 Mich App 660, 674 (2014).

“[N]either the admissions made by [the adjudicated parent] nor [the unadjudicated parent’s] failure to object to those admissions constituted an adjudication of [the unadjudicated parent’s] fitness[.]” In re SJ Temples, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 12, 2015 (Docket No. 323246)³ (finding that the trial court violated the unadjudicated parent’s “due process rights by subjecting him to dispositional orders without first adjudicating him as unfit[]”).

10.2​Requirements Before Court Can Accept Plea

“[R]espondents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of [their child]. And the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that, for a plea to constitute an effective waiver of a fundamental right, the plea must be voluntary and knowing. . . . [MCR 3.971] reflect[s] this due-process guarantee.” In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 21 (2019).

A.​Advice of Rights and Possible Disposition

“Before accepting a plea of admission or plea of no contest, the court must advise the respondent on the record or in a writing that is made a part of the file:

(1) of the allegations in the petition;

(2) of the right to an attorney, if respondent is without an attorney;

(3) that, if the court accepts the plea, the respondent will give up the rights to

(a) trial by a judge or trial by a jury,

(b) have the petitioner prove the allegations in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence,

(c) have witnesses against the respondent appear and testify under oath at the trial,

(d) cross-examine witnesses, and

(e) have the court subpoena any witnesses the respondent believes could give testimony in the respondent’s favor;

(4) of the consequences of the plea, including that the plea can later be used as evidence in a proceeding to terminate parental rights if the respondent is a parent.

(5) if parental rights are subsequently terminated, the obligation to support the child will continue until a court of competent jurisdiction modifies or terminates the obligation, an order of adoption is entered, or the child is emancipated by operation of law. Failure to provide required notice under this subsection does not affect the obligation imposed by law or otherwise establish a remedy or cause of action on behalf of the parent;

(6) that appellate review is available to challenge any errors in the adjudicatory process, which may be challenged in an appeal from the court’s initial order of disposition;

(7) that an indigent respondent is entitled to appointment of an attorney to represent the respondent on any appeal as of right and to preparation of transcripts; and

(8) the respondent may be barred from challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in an appeal from an order terminating parental rights if they do not timely file an appeal of the initial dispositional order under MCR 7.204 or a delayed appeal under MCR 3.993(C).”⁴ MCR 3.971(B).

Note: The procedural requirements in MCR 3.971(B) only apply to pleas of admission or no contest given in the adjudication phase of the proceeding when a respondent pleads to statutory grounds for termination; MCR 3.971(B) does not apply to a voluntary release of parental rights, which may be given in the dispositional phase of proceedings after the court has already assumed jurisdiction. In re Pawloski, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025).

A respondent’s plea of admission or no contest is defective if the court fails to provide him or her with the advice of rights and possible disposition as provided in MCR 3.971(B) before accepting the respondent’s plea. In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 672-673 (2008).

“The respondent may challenge the assumption of jurisdiction in an appeal from the order terminating respondent’s parental rights if the court fails to properly advise the respondent of their right to appeal pursuant to [MCR 3.971](B)(6)-(8).” MCR 3.971(C).

See In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 21 (2019) (vacating the trial court’s order of adjudication where the respondent-parents’ due process rights were violated when “[i]n taking the respondents’ pleas, the court did not advise them that they were waiving any rights[, n]or did the court advise them of the consequences of their pleas, as required by our court rules[, MCR 3.971(C)-(D)⁵].”) (citations omitted). But see In re Pederson, 331 Mich App 445, 466 (2020), where the trial court advised respondents of most of the rights waived by entry of a plea unlike the court in Ferranti. In Pederson, the trial court only failed to advise respondents that their pleas could be used against them during subsequent termination proceedings, MCR 3.971(B)(4). In re Pederson, 331 Mich App at 466. Importantly, respondents in In re Pederson were advised of the rights listed in MCR 3.971(B)(3), which concern the adjudicative phase of the proceedings. Pederson, 331 Mich App at 467-468. Therefore, respondents were aware that their pleas waived their right to have a trial to determine whether jurisdiction over their children was proper—that is, the court’s failure to advise respondents that their pleas could be used during later termination hearings did not taint the adjudicative phase of the proceedings. Id. at 468-469. The trial court did err by failing to advise respondents of the consequence of their pleas as provided in MCR 3.971(B)(4), but the error was unpreserved and subject to review for plain error affecting substantial rights. Pederson, 331 Mich App at 470. Respondents failed to show that they were prejudiced by the error, that the error was outcome-determinative, or that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the proceedings, and therefore, respondents were not entitled to relief. Id. at 470-471.

B.​Knowing, Understanding, Voluntary, and Accurate Plea

Before accepting a plea, the court must satisfy itself that the plea is knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made. MCR 3.971(D)(1). The court must also establish the accuracy of the plea. MCR 3.971(D)(2). See In re Wangler/Paschke, 498 Mich 911, 911 (2015) (“the manner in which the trial court assumed jurisdiction violated the respondent-mother’s due process rights” where “the trial court violated [MCR 3.971(D)(1)⁶] by failing to satisfy itself that the respondent-mother’s plea was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made, and violated [MCR 3.971(D)(2)⁷] by failing to establish support for a finding that one or more of the statutory grounds alleged in the petition were true”).

1.​Knowing and Understanding Plea

The court need not ask respondent directly if his or her plea is knowingly made. In re King, 186 Mich App 458, 466-467 (1990) (trial court’s lengthy discussion with respondent regarding a plea agreement clearly showed that the plea was knowingly made).

2.​Voluntary Plea

In a child protective proceeding, “[t]he court shall not accept a plea of admission or of no contest without satisfying itself that the plea is knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made.” MCR 3.971(D)(1).

3.​Accurate Plea

The court must establish support for a finding that one or more of the statutory grounds alleged in the petition are true before accepting a plea of admission or no contest. MCR 3.971(D)(2). Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. In re Youmans, 156 Mich App 679, 684-685 (1986) (“Although the respondents are free to admit the truth of the allegations and relieve the prosecutor of the need to put forth proofs, the admissions do not establish the court’s jurisdiction. The court must make an independent determination of whether the allegations are sufficient to permit the court to assume jurisdiction over the matter.”)

If the respondent is entering a plea of admission, the accuracy of the plea should be established by questioning the respondent. MCR 3.971(D)(2). See In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662, 673 (2008) (inadequate factual basis established where, during the only dialogue exchanged, the mother admitted to an allegation after the court simply read the petition’s first paragraph and asked the mother whether she admitted it); In re Waite, 188 Mich App 189, 195 (1991) (inadequate factual basis established at plea proceeding where the mother admitted negligence only upon the court’s questioning, and the mother’s testimony “did not indicate that, at the time [she] entrusted her son to her friend’s temporary care, she had any basis to believe that her friend either would not or could not provide proper care”).

If the respondent pleads no contest, the court must not question him or her, but, by some other means, must establish support for a finding that one or more of the statutory grounds alleged in the petition are true. MCR 3.971(D)(2). The court must also state why a plea of no contest is appropriate. Id. See In re Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96, 134 (1975), for examples of appropriate reasons to accept a plea of no contest.

C.​Plea Does Not Waive Respondent’s Right To Contest Adequacy of Reunification Efforts

A respondent’s no contest plea to statutory grounds alleged in support of terminating the respondent’s parental rights is not a waiver of the respondent’s right to challenge the adequacy of the DHHS’s efforts at reunification. In re MJC, 349 Mich App 42, 54 (2023). “DHHS’s duty to make reasonable efforts toward reunification is distinct from its duty to prove at least one statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence[.]” Id. at 50 (holding that although the DHHS’s failure to make reasonable efforts at reunification would require reversal, respondent did not preserve the issue and could not demonstrate plain error affecting respondent’s substantial rights; in fact, the DHHS regularly offered services to respondent aimed to assist respondent in remedying respondent’s drug addiction, but respondent “was chronically noncompliant and wholly failed to benefit from the services offered”).

10.3​Records of Plea Proceedings

“A record of all hearings must be made. All proceedings on the formal calendar^[8] must be recorded by stenographic recording or by mechanical or electronic recording as provided by statute or MCR 8.108. A plea of admission or no contest, including any agreement with or objection to the plea, must be recorded.” MCR 3.925(B).

10.4​Withdrawal of Pleas

A respondent must raise issues concerning the court’s noncompliance with the court rule governing pleas in the trial court in order to preserve the issue for appeal. In re Campbell, 170 Mich App 243, 249-250 (1988).

The trial court did not err in refusing to allow respondent-father to withdraw his plea where he failed to meet a condition of the plea agreement (failing to comply with the service agreement), and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) moved to terminate his parental rights). See In re Zelzack, 180 Mich App 117, 124-126 (1989).

10.5​Combined Adjudicative and Dispositional Hearings

MCR 3.973(B), which governs notice of dispositional hearings, contemplates a combined adjudicative and dispositional hearing: “[u]nless the dispositional hearing is held immediately after the trial, notice of hearing may be given by scheduling it on the record in the presence of the parties or in accordance with MCR 3.920.” MCR 3.973(C) assigns to the court’s discretion the interval between the trial and the dispositional hearing (not to exceed 28 days when a child is in placement). Accordingly, the two hearings may be combined if necessary preparations are made before the hearing, including preparation of a case service plan.⁹ MCR 3.973(E)(2).

Note: Combined hearings are often conducted when the allegations in the petition are uncontested.