Opinion ID: 831254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the right to participate by telephone under mcr 2.004

Text: MCR 2.004 requires the court and the petitioning party to arrange for telephonic communication with incarcerated parents whose children are the subject of child protective actions. See MCR 2.004(A) to (C). The express purposes of the rule include ensuring adequate notice... and ... an opportunity to respond and to participate, in part by determining how the incarcerated party can communicate with the court ... during the pendency of the action, and whether the party needs special assistance for such communication, including participation in additional phone calls. MCR 2.004(E)(1) and (4). The court must consider the scheduling and nature of future proceedings, to the extent practicable, and the manner in which the incarcerated party may participate. MCR 2.004(E)(5). Significantly, MCR 2.004(F) provides: A court may not grant the relief requested by the moving party concerning the minor child if the incarcerated party has not been offered the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, as described in this rule. This provision shall not apply if the incarcerated party actually does participate in a telephone call.... Although the court here arranged for respondent to participate in the July 24, 2007, pretrial hearing, no one informed him of his right to continue to participate in the proceedings with facilitation by the court. [3] The court and the DHS were well aware that respondent was in prison and thus needed special assistance [4] to participate in future proceedings. [5] Yet the court arranged for respondent's phone participation in only one additional proceeding before the termination hearing the December 3, 2008, permanency planning hearing. When a respondent is not offered the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, MCR 2.004(F) prohibits the court from granting the moving party's request for relief unless the respondent actually participated in a telephone call. The DHS argues that the protection of MCR 2.004(F) is not applicable here because respondent participated in two telephone callsat the July 24, 2007, pretrial hearing and the December 3, 2008, permanency planning hearing. We disagree. A child protective action such as this consists of a series of proceedings, including a preliminary hearing at which the court may authorize a petition for removal of a child from his home, MCL 712A.13a(2), review hearings to evaluate the child's and parents' progress, MCL 712A.19, permanency planning hearings, MCL 712A.19a, and, in some instances, a termination hearing, MCL 712A.19b. [6] Each proceeding generally involves different issues and decisions by the court. Thus, to comply with MCR 2.004, the moving party and the court must offer the parent the opportunity to participate in each proceeding in a child protective action. For this reason, participation through a telephone call during one proceeding will not suffice to allow the court to enter an order at another proceeding for which the parent was not offered the opportunity to participate. This case illustrates the point well. Although respondent participated by phone in the July 24, 2007, pretrial hearing, he was not offered the opportunity to participate in the review or permanency planning hearings held from August 2007 through July 2008. By the time respondent participated in the December 3, 2008, permanency planning hearing16 months after he last participatedthe court and the DHS were ready to move on to the termination hearing. Thus, respondent missed the crucial, year-long review period during which the court was called upon to evaluate the parents' efforts and decide whether reunification of the children with their parents could be achieved. Indeed, respondent was practically excluded from almost every element of the review process, as is further detailed below. In sum, respondent was not offered the opportunity to participate in the proceedings, MCR 2.004(F), by the moving party and the court as required by MCR 2.004(B). [7] Further, he did not actually participate in a telephone call relevant to each proceeding. Although he participated in two calls before the termination hearing, neither call took place during the review period when the DHS made efforts to reunify the children with their parents. Accordingly, the court was precluded from granting the relief requested by the moving party at the close of the review periodspecifically, the DHS's request for termination of respondent's parental rights. Respondent's absence affected both his ability to participate and the information available for the court's consideration. Accordingly, as will be discussed, the circuit court's resultant findings in relation to the statutory grounds for termination were clearly erroneous.