Michigan court backs dad on parental rights, cites Indian child welfare law

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the father of two American Indian children is entitled to withdraw his consent to terminate his parental rights because the adoption of his children has not yet been finalized.

In 2012, Jack Williams' children — a 2-year-old and a newborn — were removed from his care and placed in foster care after the newborn was found to have tested positive for controlled substances at birth, according to information from both the high court's syllabus and opinion.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition in Macomb Circuit Court to terminate Williams' parental rights. But before the termination hearing, Williams — a member of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians — agreed to the termination of his parental rights for the purpose of adoption.

The kids' mother also withdrew her parental rights but has not appealed or withdrawn her releases, the court said.

The children were not named in court documents and were referred to only by the initials JJW and ELW.

Read more:

The children's foster parents petitioned Oakland Circuit Court to adopt them, according to the high court opinion drafted by Justice Bridget M. McCormack. But the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe objected under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, which require that tribes be given proper notice of child custody proceedings and allow tribes to intervene and object to an adoption.

The trial court then denied the foster parents' petition for adoption and placed the kids with new foster parents, and that same month, Williams requested to withdraw his consent to the termination of his parental rights, the high court said.

"Typically, a termination of parental rights becomes final and irrevocable when a court enters the termination order," the opinion stated.

However, the state Legislature, according to the court's statement, made an exception to this rule for "the parents of Indian children who voluntarily release their parental rights or consent to termination of those rights under the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act."

According to the high court, the trial court denied Williams' request on the grounds that he was not entitled to the withdrawal once the court had entered the termination order, because he released his kids to the state agency and not to an adoptive parent — a decision that the Court of Appeals affirmed.

But the Supreme Court disagreed.

"That Williams released his children to DHHS rather than to a specific adoptive parent is not relevant to his ability to withdraw his consent," the court said, referencing Michigan statute MCL 712B.13 (1). "The statute contains no language that a specific adoptive placement is required."

The high court's ruling reverses the Court of Appeals and remands Williams' case to the trial court.

"The Legislature enacted MIFPA to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families," the court said in conclusion. "One way the act accomplishes this goal is by permitting the parents of Indian children who voluntarily consent to the termination of their parental rights for the purpose of adoption to withdraw that consent at any time before an adoption is finalized."

Contact Hasan Dudar at hdudar@freepress.com.