In Re C S Alexander Minor
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided
June 3, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Practice Areas
Case Summary
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLICATION June 03, 2025 10:46 AM In re C. S. ALEXANDER, Minor. Nos. 369324; 369325 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2004-433556-NA Before: MARIANI, P.J., and RIORDAN and FEENEY, JJ. RIORDAN, J. In these consolidated appeals,1 respondents appeal as of right the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to CSA under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f) (abandonment). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Petitioners were appointed as the legal guardians of CSA on July 31, 2019.2 In September 2022, petitioners filed a permanent custody petition requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CSA pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(6)(A) (the parent, having the ability to support the child, has failed or neglected, without good cause, to provide regular and substantial support 1 On January 17, 2024, this Court entered an order consolidating these two appeals. In re C S Alexander, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 17, 2024 (Docket Nos. 369324 & 369325). 2 We note that there are discrepancies in the lower court record as to when petitioners’ guardianship of CSA was originally established, presumably because multiple orders of guardianship were entered due to issues surrounding the identity of CSA’s true father. However, as the referee took judicial notice of the record arising out of the accompanying probate-court proceedings, and she determined that petitioners’ guardianship was first established on July 31, 2019, that is the date we have cited. -1- for the child for two years or more before the filing of the petition), and (B) (the parent, having ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the child, has regularly and substantially failed or neglected, without good cause, to do so for two years or more before the filing of the petition),3 and enter an order terminating the parental rights of respondent-mother and respondent-mother’s husband4 to CSA under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f). Petitioners presumably listed respondent-mother’s husband as the minor child’s legal father, as opposed to respondent-father, due to their marital relationship, and because respondent-mother’s husband was listed as the father on CSA’s birth certificate. When petitioners filed the aforementioned petition, it appears that petitioners were unaware that in February 2022, the Wayne Probate Court entered an order revoking the paternity of respondent-mother’s husband regarding four of respondent-mother’s children, including CSA, and vacated all orders of filiation, child support, and other related items, because DNA testing results revealed that respondent-mother’s husband was not the biological father of the four cited children.5 Accordingly, in February 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing petitioners’ September 2022 permanent custody petition because respondent-mother’s husband was improperly listed as CSA’s father, and “Mother has identified a man as the biological father of [CSA], but no notice has been submitted to him by this court or the Probate Court[,]” referring to respondent-father. The trial court further ordered petitioners to return to the probate court to “seek a new consent order and give notice to biological father of the same.” On April 19, 2023, the probate court entered an order for authority to adopt and granted petitioners the authority to file a petition for the adoption of CSA. On May 15, 2023, petitioners filed a permanent custody petition requesting that the trial court assume jurisdiction over CSA pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(6)(A) and (B),6 and enter an order terminating respondents’ parental rights to CSA under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f). The petition detailed that a guardianship order placing CSA in petitioners’ custody was entered on February 2, 2023,7 and the petition further identified respondents as the parents of CSA. On May 18, 2023, the trial court authorized the petition. On 3 The petition erroneously cites MCL 712A.2(b)(5) as the statutory ground for jurisdiction, but the featured language is from MCL 712A.2(b)(6). 4 It is unclear wheth
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 3, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
In Re C S Alexander Minor: Case Summary
Case Overview
This case involves the termination of parental rights of C.S. Alexander's parents under Michigan law, focusing on issues of abandonment and the legal definitions of parentage. The Michigan Court of Appeals issued its ruling on June 3, 2025, addressing the complexities surrounding parental rights in child protective proceedings.
Legal Issues
The court addressed several key legal questions:
- Termination of parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f) for abandonment.
- Whether a putative father qualifies as a parent for jurisdiction in child protective proceedings.
- The impact of a putative father's actions prior to establishing paternity on jurisdiction and termination of parental rights.
- Whether the trial court erred in terminating the parental rights of the respondents based on the best interests of the child.
Factual Background
- Petitioners were appointed as legal guardians of CSA on July 31, 2019.
- The respondent-mother's husband was initially listed as CSA's father but was later found not to be the biological father.
- The trial court determined that CSA was thriving under petitioners' care.
- Respondent-father was a putative father at the time the petition was filed, and an affidavit of parentage had not been filed.
- Respondent-mother failed to provide regular and substantial support for CSA for over two years.
Court's Analysis
The court's reasoning included:
- The trial court found that respondents failed to provide support and maintain contact with CSA, affirming the termination of parental rights for the respondent-mother based on clear evidence of neglect.
- The court distinguished between the jurisdictional status of a putative father and the consideration of his conduct for termination of parental rights, emphasizing that a putative father does not qualify as a parent for jurisdictional purposes until paternity is established.
- The court upheld the termination of the respondent-mother's parental rights, finding clear and convincing evidence of her unfitness due to lack of support and relationship with the child, prioritizing the child's best interests.
Holdings and Decision
- The court affirmed the termination of parental rights for the respondent-mother due to abandonment and lack of support.
- The court reversed the termination of parental rights for the respondent-father due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing for further proceedings.
Legal Precedents
The court cited several important precedents:
- In re Moss, 301 Mich App 76; 836 NW2d 182 (2013): Established the standard of clear and convincing evidence for termination of parental rights.
- In re White, 303 Mich App 701; 846 NW2d 61 (2014): Clarified the review standard for factual findings in termination cases.
- In re Long, 326 Mich App 455, 464; 927 NW2d 724 (2018): Established that a putative father does not qualify as a parent for jurisdiction in child protective proceedings.
- In re Gonzales/Martinez, 310 Mich App 426, 434; 871 NW2d 868 (2015): Clarified the standard for determining best interests of the child.
Practical Implications
This ruling has significant implications for family law and child custody proceedings in Michigan:
- It reinforces the necessity of establishing paternity for jurisdictional purposes in child protective cases.
- The decision emphasizes the importance of clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental rights, ensuring that parental rights are not terminated without substantial proof.
- Legal practitioners must be vigilant in understanding the distinctions between parental rights, jurisdictional status, and the best interests of the child in future cases.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 3, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools