• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
FILED JULY 14, 2009In re JL, Minor.____________________________________DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,Petitioner-Appellee,v No. 137653CHERYL LYNN LEE,Respondent-Appellant,andSAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OFCHIPPEWA INDIANS,Intervening Respondent-Appellee.BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCHCORRIGAN, J.Respondent Cheryl Lee challenges the judgment of the Court of Appealsaffirming the termination of her parental rights to her son, JL.
 In re Lee
,unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 16, 2008(Docket No. 283038). Respondent specifically claims error in the interpretationand application of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 USC 1901
et seq
.
Michigan Supreme CourtLansing, Michigan
Opinion
Chief Justice:
Marilyn Kelly
Justices:
Michael F. CavanaghElizabeth A. WeaverMaura D. CorriganRobert P. Young, Jr.Stephen J. MarkmanDiane M. Hathaway
 
 
 
2She urges us to adopt the interpretation of the ICWA offered by the dissentingCourt of Appeals judge. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals becausepetitioner the Department of Human Services (DHS), provided timely, affirmativeefforts that satisfied the ICWA’s “active efforts” requirement, 25 USC 1912(d).We hold that the ICWA requires the DHS to undertake a thorough,contemporaneous assessment of the services provided to the parent in the past andthe parent’s response to those services before seeking to terminate parental rightswithout having offered additional services. The ICWA does not, however,categorically require the DHS to provide services each time a new terminationproceeding is commenced against a parent. We further reject respondent’s claimthat the lower courts applied a conclusive presumption of unfitness based on herpast conduct in determining that respondent’s continued custody was “likely toresult in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.” 25 USC 1912(f).Finally, we conclude that this determination was supported by evidence beyond areasonable doubt, as required by 25 USC 1912(f).I. Basic Facts and Procedural HistoryRespondent and her son, JL, are both members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribeof Chippewa Indians. Between 1999 and 2006, respondent gave birth to fourchildren: JL, SD, JD, and BP. JL is the oldest child. Respondent’s parental rightsto SD, JD, and BP were terminated in earlier proceedings that are not at issue here.JL was born in 1999, when respondent was 16 years old and living in fostercare. DHS Child Protective Services (CPS) worker Regina Frazier began working
 
 
3with respondent in 1998, even before respondent had children. Respondent wasthen both a delinquent and a victim of abuse and neglect. Respondent displayedabusive and neglectful behavior after JL’s birth, so he was removed fromrespondent’s care in September 2000. Frazier provided wraparound services
1
untilrespondent moved to Sault Ste. Marie. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of ChippewaIndians Tribal Court assumed jurisdiction over the case in March 2002. The tribalcourt released JL from its jurisdiction in August 2002, when he was placed in alimited guardianship with his paternal grandmother, Lois Plank. Meanwhile,respondent gave birth to a daughter, SD, on November 24, 2001.Anishinabek Community Family Services caseworker Penny Clark beganworking with respondent in 2002, when she was 18 years old and living on areservation. Clark, who was respondent’s wraparound coordinator, and severalothers attempted to help respondent care for SD, who was then a few months old.Clark also worked with respondent on budgeting and helped her obtain socialsecurity benefits. Although Clark enjoyed working with respondent, Clark testified that respondent could be moody and impulsive and that her impulsivenessled to trouble. Under the Family Continuity Program, Clark visited respondent inher home at least once a week. Respondent’s home was often messy and unsafe;glass and cigarette butts were left within SD’s reach. Clark also had concerns
1
Frazier testified that the wraparound program works with families whoreceive services from multiple agencies to coordinate those services.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...