Child Welfare Appellate Clinic
The Federal Constitution guarantees parents the right to direct the care of their children. Yet, each year, thousands of Michigan parents are stripped of their constitutional right to care for their children when the State terminates their parental rights. Because of the constitutional rights at stake and the permanence of the decision, the termination of a parent's rights ("TPR") has been referred to as the "civil death penalty" by courts, legal scholars and advocates.
Students in the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic ("CWAC") represent parents in TPR appeals at the Michigan Court of Appeals. Students handle all aspects of the case. They identify the legal errors and write the appellate briefs. They interview and counsel the clients. And they handle the oral arguments before a three judge panel of the Court of Appeals. Not only do students in CWAC learn key lawyering skills such as persuasive storytelling, structuring legal arguments, interviewing, and client counseling, they also safeguard the fundamental rights of these parents.
Our students have had some remarkable successes in these cases. Typically, parents prevail in less than 7% of TPR appeals; in the first four years of the clinic, our students have prevailed in almost 50%. Several of these cases have resulted in published decisions that will protect parent’s rights going forward, including:
In re D. Gach
The Court of Appeals overturned a provision of the juvenile code that allowed the state to terminate parental rights based solely on a prior termination. Our students argued that this provision violated the Due Process clause. The court agreed. Read the opinion.
In re Hicks/Brown
CWAC students represented a cognitively impaired mother who struggled to care for her daughter. The Court of Appeals overturned the termination, holding that DHHS has an affirmative responsibility to ensure the parent is reasonably accommodated throughout the process. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that once knows that a parent has a disability, the department must "modify its standard procedures in ways that are reasonably necessary to accommodate a disability." Read the opinion.
In re Pops
CWAC students successfully argued that an incarcerated parent had provided proper care and custody when he arranged for care with his mother. This result was especially notable because DHHS had taken the child away from the grandmother before termination. The court noted that the father’s rights still could not be terminated because he arranged for care with someone would could have provided proper care. Read the opinion.
CWAC students have also won reversals of termination cases on a variety of other grounds:
-
Failure to properly notify the parent of her right to a jury trial
-
Failure to properly consider the fact that the children had been placed with a relative
-
Failure to make separate findings of unfitness for both parents
-
Failure to consider evidence about whether a guardianship might be a better plan than termination and adoption
If you'd like more information about the CWAC, please contact Professor Sankaran at
vss@umich.edu.