PROBATE CODE OF 1939
Act 288 of 1939
712B.15 Failure of parent to provide consent; requirements; removal of child from parent or Indian custodian; clear and convincing evidence; termination of parental rights; remedial services and rehabilitative programs; determination that continued custody likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage.
Sec. 15.
(1) If an Indian child is the subject of a child protective proceeding under section 2(b) of chapter XIIA, including instances in which the parent executed a release under section 28 of chapter X during the pendency of that proceeding, or a guardianship proceeding under section 5204 or 5205 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.5204 and 700.5205, and if a parent does not provide consent as described in section 13 of this chapter, or a guardianship proceeding under section 19a or 19c of chapter XIIA, the following requirements must be met:
(a) Notice of the pending proceeding must be given as prescribed by Michigan supreme court rule, the Indian child welfare act, and section 9 of this chapter.
(b) The proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with Michigan supreme court rules and subsections (2) to (4).
(c) Section 25 of this chapter applies in a guardianship proceeding under section 5204 or 5205 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.5204 and 700.5205.
(2) An Indian child may be removed from a parent or Indian custodian, placed into a foster care placement, or, for an Indian child already taken into protective custody, remain removed from a parent or Indian custodian pending further proceedings, only upon clear and convincing evidence that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, that the active efforts were unsuccessful, and that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child. The active efforts must take into account the prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life of the Indian child's tribe. The evidence must include the testimony of at least 1 qualified expert witness, who has knowledge of the child rearing practices of the Indian child's tribe, that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child.
(3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that the active efforts were unsuccessful.
(4) No termination of parental rights may be ordered in a proceeding described in this section without a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of at least 1 qualified expert witness as described in section 17, that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child.
(5) Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for termination of parental rights under state law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody the Indian child was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate the action upon a showing that the action violated any provision of this section.
History: Add. 2012, Act 565, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 26, Eff. May 30, 2016
PopularName Notes:
Probate Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 35× “[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of these provisions makes clear, 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 9× “As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 12× “2(b) provides the means by which a trial court may assume jurisdiction over a minor child, including when a parent fails to provide proper custody and care to the minor child, the home environment is an unfit place for the minor child to live, or the minor child is in danger of…”
In re Williams, 915 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 26× “The trial court denied Williams's request, holding that Williams was not entitled to withdraw his release once the court had entered the order terminating his parental rights because Williams had released his children to DHHS rather than to a specific adoptive parent. The Court…”
In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 874 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “In that case, this Court interpreted 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.15(2), two different — but very similar— provisions of ICWA and MIFPA, which govern the evidentiary standards required to place an Indian child in protective custody.”
In re McCarrick, 861 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “” 97 The Family Preservation Act provides the same remedy for a violation of MCL 712B.15. 98 In cases in which the trial court has violated ICWA by failing to provide the child’s tribe with notice, this Court conditionally reverses.”
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15(5).] We acknowledge that we do not know whether there are any Indian tribes located in Kalamazoo County.”
in Re Williams Minors (Mich. 2018).
· cites it 35× “13(1), and because he was a participant in a child protective proceeding otherwise governed by MCL 712B.15, which, the Court of Appeals concluded, does not address or provide for withdrawal of a release.”
in Re E M England Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 34× “[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of the above provisions make clear, 25 USC § 1912 (e) and MCL 712B.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 13× “MCL 712B.15 provides specific procedures a trial court must follow when “an Indian child is the subject of a child protective proceeding under [MCL 712A.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 13× “MCL 712B.15 provides specific procedures a trial court must follow when “an Indian child is the subject of a child protective proceeding under [MCL 712A.”
in Re beers/lebeau-beers Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(1) — 8 cases
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“2(b) provides the means by which a trial court may assume jurisdiction over a minor child, including when a parent fails to provide proper custody and care to the minor child, the home environment is an unfit place for the minor child to live, or the minor child is in danger of…”
In re Williams, 915 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. 2018).
“The trial court denied Williams's request, holding that Williams was not entitled to withdraw his release once the court had entered the order terminating his parental rights because Williams had released his children to DHHS rather than to a specific adoptive parent. The Court…”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
in Re Williams Minors (Mich. 2018).
“13(1), and because he was a participant in a child protective proceeding otherwise governed by MCL 712B.15, which, the Court of Appeals concluded, does not address or provide for withdrawal of a release.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“MCL 712B.15 provides specific procedures a trial court must follow when “an Indian child is the subject of a child protective proceeding under [MCL 712A.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(2) — 18 cases
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of these provisions makes clear, 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.”
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 910 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“2(b) provides the means by which a trial court may assume jurisdiction over a minor child, including when a parent fails to provide proper custody and care to the minor child, the home environment is an unfit place for the minor child to live, or the minor child is in danger of…”
In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 874 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“In that case, this Court interpreted 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.15(2), two different — but very similar— provisions of ICWA and MIFPA, which govern the evidentiary standards required to place an Indian child in protective custody.”
In re McCarrick, 861 N.W.2d 303 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
“” 97 The Family Preservation Act provides the same remedy for a violation of MCL 712B.15. 98 In cases in which the trial court has violated ICWA by failing to provide the child’s tribe with notice, this Court conditionally reverses.”
in Re detmer/beaudry Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“MCL 712B.15 provides specific procedures a trial court must follow when “an Indian child is the subject of a child protective proceeding under [MCL 712A.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(3) — 16 cases
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of these provisions makes clear, 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
in Re E M England Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of the above provisions make clear, 25 USC § 1912 (e) and MCL 712B.”
in Re beers/lebeau-beers Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(4) — 20 cases
In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of these provisions makes clear, 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.”
In re Payne/Pumphrey/Fortson, 874 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“In that case, this Court interpreted 25 USC 1912(e) and MCL 712B.15(2), two different — but very similar— provisions of ICWA and MIFPA, which govern the evidentiary standards required to place an Indian child in protective custody.”
In re Beers, 926 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“As part of MIFPA, MCL 712B.15 provides, in pertinent part: (3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative…”
in Re E M England Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15.] As the plain language of the above provisions make clear, 25 USC § 1912 (e) and MCL 712B.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.15(5) — 4 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“[MCL 712B.15(5).] We acknowledge that we do not know whether there are any Indian tribes located in Kalamazoo County.”
in Re Williams Minors (Mich. 2018).
“13(1), and because he was a participant in a child protective proceeding otherwise governed by MCL 712B.15, which, the Court of Appeals concluded, does not address or provide for withdrawal of a release.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.