In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson
Michigan Court of Appeals
311 Mich. App. 49, 498 Mich. 869 (2015)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), a court could not order termination of parental rights (TPR) without a determination, supported by evidence including the testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that a parent’s continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. A mother (defendant) had two children, A.P. and D.P., who were members of or eligible to become members of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the band). After many years of intervention by the Department of Human Services (DHS) (plaintiff) as a result of allegations of abuse and neglect, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights, and the mother appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial. At the new trial, the court found that Christopher Hillert, a child-welfare worker for the band, was a qualified expert witness regarding the band’s culture and childrearing practices. Hillert testified that in general, the band did not support the practice of TPR. Hillert further testified that he felt that the mother’s continued custody was unlikely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to A.P. or D.P. The trial court held that Hillert’s testimony did not preclude TPR. The trial court found that there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother’s custody was likely to result in serious damage to A.P. and D.P. and that TPR was in their best interests. The mother appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gadola, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.