In re Smith-Taylor

8 Citing cases

  1. In re J. Moore

    No. 371990 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2025)

    "Aggravated circumstances," which include "[l]ife threatening injury[,]" MCL 722.638(1)(a)(v), "are present both for a parent who is a 'suspected perpetrator' of such abuse and a parent who is 'suspected of placing the child at an unreasonable risk of harm due to the parent's failure to take reasonable steps to intervene to eliminate'" the risk. In re Smith-Taylor, 509 Mich. 935, 935; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022), quoting MCL 722.638(2).

  2. In re Antoon

    No. 368705 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024)

    Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), there must be a "judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances" before DHHS is excused from making reasonable efforts. In re Smith-Taylor, 509 Mich. 935, 935; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022) (quotation marks omitted). However, there are other aggravated circumstances that do not specifically require a judicial determination.

  3. In re Almeamaar

    No. 368520 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2024)

    "Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), there must be a judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances before [DHHS] is excused from making reasonable efforts." In re Smith-Taylor, 509 Mich. 935, 935; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022) (quotation marks omitted). The trial court must articulate its "factual finding based on clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances exist such that services are not required."

  4. In re RG

    No. 363618 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 18, 2023)

    "Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), there must be a judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances before [DHHS] is excused from making reasonable efforts." In re Smith-Taylor, 509 Mich. 935, 935; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022) (quotation marks omitted). Aggravated circumstances are defined in MCL 722.638 and include a parent's "[c]riminal sexual conduct involving penetration, attempted penetration, or assault with intent to penetrate" the child. MCL 722.638(1)(a)(ii).

  5. In re C. L. Wilson

    No. 362493 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2023)

    [In re Smith-Taylor, 509 Mich. 935, 935; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022).]

  6. In re Able/Miles/Powell/Stokes/Thomas, Minors

    No. 360711 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2023)

    In re Williams, 333 Mich.App. 172, 178; 958 N.W.2d 629 (2020). "Reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family must be made in all cases absent aggravated circumstances." In re Smith-Taylor, ___ Mich. ___, ___; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022) (Docket No. 163725); slip op at 1 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Under MCL 712A.19a(2)(a), there must be a judicial determination that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances before the Department is excused from making reasonable efforts." Id. at ___; slip op at 1 (quotation marks omitted). "Aggravated circumstances justifying a petition seeking termination of parental rights at initial disposition under MCL 712A.2 are triggered when a parent 'has abused the child' in one of the ways delineated in MCL 722.638(1)(a)."

  7. In re Piland

    No. 360062 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2022)

    We also find unpersuasive respondents argument that they were prejudiced because they were prevented from whispering questions and raising concerns to their lawyer. In In re Smith-Taylor, __ Mich App __, __; __ N.W.2d __ (2021) (Docket No. 356585); slip op at 10, rev'd on other grounds 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022), the respondent had agreed to participate in child-protective proceedings by videoconference but later argued that the trial court erred by failing to inform her of her right to appear in person. This Court stated, in part, "Respondent failed to set forth any argument as to how the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had they taken place in-person. Accordingly, respondent has failed to establish that her due process rights were violated."

  8. In re Casper/Washington Minors

    No. 359270 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 9, 2022)

    Moreover, after the Department complied with the order, the Supreme Court reversed. In re Smith-Taylor, ___ Mich___; 971 N.W.2d 657 (2022) (Docket No. 163725) (entered April 8, 2022). In doing so, the Supreme Court noted that this Court misconstrued the trial court's findings of fact.