Opinion ID: 836646
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The remedy for violation of MCR 2.004 is reversal

Text: With regard to a remedy for violation of MCR 2.004, MCR 2.004(F) explicitly 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. [16] (Emphasis added.) I agree with respondent and the AG that the plain language of subrule F, combined with the rule's overall purposes, defies typical harmless error review. MCR 2.004(F) affirmatively prohibits the trial court from taking action when the rule has been violated. And the rule would be effectively meaningless if its enforcement depended on an imprisoned parent's ability to show, in hindsight, that his participation would have affected the outcome of the proceeding. Such a requirement would rewrite the rule to require parental participation only upon proof that the parent likely could achieve an outcome in his favor; such a notion negates a parent's right to participate in proceedings involving his children and turns due process on its ear. MCR 2.004(F) clearly requires reversal here. Neither the DHS, nor the court ever fulfilled its respective duty to arrange for respondent's participation. And because respondent did not have an attorney to represent him, no one familiar with the law appeared on his behalf to ensure that the rule was enforced. The enumerated purposes of the rule were never fulfilled and, as a result, respondent was totally deprived of the ability to participate in the proceedings. [17] Accordingly, the court was prohibited from granting the DHS's petition for termination. I would reverse on the basis of MCR 2.004(F) alone.