Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Termination Case to Resolve Indian Child Welfare Act Notice Requirements

JACKSON (LN) — The Michigan Court of Appeals conditionally reversed a St. Joseph County trial court’s order terminating a mother’s parental rights, remanding the case solely to resolve whether the state complied with notification requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act.

In In Re R. M. Wendzel Minor, a three-judge panel concluded that the record was unclear on whether the trial court complied with notification mandates, despite the mother’s counsel informing the court at a preliminary hearing that the mother had stated she had “some” Indian heritage “down the line.”

The court held that this statement constituted sufficient indicia of Indian heritage to trigger the notification mandate. The panel noted that the “reason to know” standard under the Indian Child Welfare Act is a “low bar” that does not require identification of a specific tribe.

Citing In re Morris, the panel wrote that “indicia sufficient to trigger tribal notice includes situations in which (1) the trial court has information suggesting that the child, a parent of the child, or members of a parent’s family are tribal members, [or] (2) the trial court has information indicating that the child has Indian heritage, even though no particular Indian tribe can be identified.”

Although court reports indicated that the Department of Health and Human Services conducted a “Native American Inquiry” and concluded there was no “Native American affiliation,” the opinion noted there was no explanation of how that conclusion was reached or any indication that notice was sent to potential tribes or the Secretary of the Interior.

The Court of Appeals conditionally reversed the termination order and remanded the matter for the trial court to ensure proper notice was made. If the trial court determines the child is not an Indian child, the termination order will be reinstated; if the child is an Indian child, the termination order must be vacated and proceedings must begin anew under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

The panel also rejected the mother’s due-process argument that a process server’s testimony regarding her alleged methamphetamine use violated her rights, ruling the issue was unpreserved and the testimony was admissible as relevant to the petition.

The petitioner did not file a brief on appeal.

The panel consisted of Presiding Judge Christopher M. Murray, and Judges James Robert Redford and Michelle M. Rick.