In re Hicks

Michigan Supreme Court

In re Hicks

882 N.W.2d 136, 499 Mich. 982, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1579

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 26, 2016

DocketNo. 153786; Court of Appeals No. 328870

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 882 N.W.2d 136 (In re Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hicks, 882 N.W.2d 136, 499 Mich. 982, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1579 (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 35 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the respondent-mother made a timely request for accommodation of her disability in the service plan prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services; (2) whether the Department of Health and Human Services made “reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family,” as required by MCL 712A.19a(2), given the respondent-mother’s disability; and (3) whether the failure to provide a service plan that accommodates a respondent’s disability may be grounds for reversal of a termination of parental rights on appeal, under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or under the Probate Code, MCL 712A.19a(2), where there is no determination that the trial court erred in finding grounds for termination under MCL 712A. 19b(3) or that termination was in the best interests of the children under MCL 712A.19b(5). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 35 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the respondent-mother made a timely request for accommodation of her disability in the service plan prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services; (2) whether the Department of Health and Human Services made “reasonable efforts to reunify the child and family,” as required by MCL 712A.19a(2), given the respondent-mother’s disability; and (3) whether the failure to provide a service plan that accommodates a respondent’s disability may be grounds for reversal of a termination of parental rights on appeal, under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or under the Probate Code, MCL 712A.19a(2), where there is no determination that the trial court erred in finding grounds for termination under MCL 712A. 19b(3) or that termination was in the best interests of the children under MCL 712A.19b(5). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

882 N.W.2d 136, 499 Mich. 982, 2016 Mich. LEXIS 1579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hicks-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack