Here is the order in People v. Covey:

Can’t post briefs because Michigan’s courts do not make them available online.
Here is the order in People v. Covey:
Can’t post briefs because Michigan’s courts do not make them available online.
Here.
Here is the opinion and the materials in People v. Magnant:
Prior post here.
Here is the order in People v. Covey:
Here are materials so far in the cases captioned People v. Davis and People v. Magnant:
Circuit Court materials:
Defendants Motion to Quash Information
People Response to Due Process Motion
People Response to Motion to Quash
People Response to Motion to Suppress
Here.
Justice Cavanagh serves on the Michigan Tribal-State-Federal Judicial Forum.
The ICWA Appellate Clinic co-represented the tribe in this case.
This case involves a complicated question of state statute interpretation regarding a voluntary consent to a termination of parental right in the face of a state termination petition. In this case, the dad consented to termination before the termination hearing. The children were later placed in a tribal-approved foster placement, and the dad withdrew his consent to termination. The question was whether dad could do that under Michigan statute.
None of the protections in MCL 712B.15, [mirroring ICWA’s main protections in an involuntary proceeding] which are designed for contested and adversarial proceedings, remains relevant once a parent voluntarily releases his or her rights under MCL 712B.13. When the court accepted Williams’s release, and the proceedings went from adversarial to cooperative, the protections of MCL 712B.15 did not apply.
However, the Court also held,
That is, Williams may withdraw his consent, but because he is still subject to MCL 712B.15, DHHS may refile a termination petition. MCL 712B.15. And, under MCL 712B.13(3), a parent who consents during an involuntary termination proceeding is not entitled to “the return of the Indian child” to him or her.
Instead, the child returns to the position the child was in before his or her parent consented to the termination of parental rights. Williams’s children were in foster care when he consented to the termination of his parental rights, his children will remain in foster care, and Williams will be once again subject to the procedures and protections of MCL 712B.15. DHHS may proceed with its termination case if it chooses, and if DHHS can satisfy the heightened requirements of MCL 712B.15, Williams’s parental rights can be terminated.
Briefing on the case is here.
At the Michigan Supreme Court:
Appellee (Macomb County/State)’s Brief
Sault Tribe Amicus Brief (MSU Indian Law Clinic, ICWA Appellate Project co-wrote this brief)
Link to news coverage here.
The Michigan Supreme Court ceremonially praised the efforts of family court participants, including Tribal leaders, for restoring children to their families on June 24, 2016, in Lansing. Five judges from Michigan’s Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum were present. According to the article, more than half of foster care children were returned to their families in 2015.
You must be logged in to post a comment.