- Posted June 05, 2014
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
High court says 'One-parent' rule infringes
By Jeff Karoub
Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) - The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a doctrine that lets authorities remove children from their parents' custody if just one parent is deemed unfit.
The court's 5-2 decision on Monday found that the more than 70-year-old "one-parent doctrine" infringes on the due process rights of parents, overturning lower courts' rulings. The state must balance its "legitimate" and "crucial" interest in protecting children "with the fundamental rights of parents," the justices said.
The ruling stemmed from a case involving Lance Laird, a one-time Jackson County sheriff candidate.
Laird contested a court's decision to remove two sons from his home after he tested positive for cocaine. The court also denied his requests for a trial to determine whether he was fit to parent. The boys' mother, Tammy Sanders, admitted taking drugs with Laird and spent night at his home despite a court order that prohibited her from having unsupervised contact with children.
One boy previously had been removed from the custody of his mother, Tammy Sanders, in 2011, days after the baby tested positive for cocaine at birth. He was placed with Laird, whose other son was living with him. Laird is currently in prison for violating federal drug-trafficking laws.
The high court also rejected Monday the Department of Human Services' argument that Laird's case should be dismissed because of his imprisonment. Justices said incarcerated parents can exercise their constitutional right to direct the care of their children.
Department of Human Services spokesman Bob Wheaton said officials are reviewing the decision.
The two dissenting justices, Judge Stephen Markman and Judge David Viviano, disagreed that both parents are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on their fitness. Likewise, they wrote, Laird was found to be unfit after several such hearings.
They added that children "in the greatest need of expedited public protection" will receive it "considerably less quickly because both parents are for the first time constitutionally entitled to jury trials."
Justices in the majority wrote that "in some cases this process may impose a greater burden on the state." However, they continued, "constitutional rights do not always come cheap."
Published: Thu, Jun 05, 2014
headlines Oakland County
- Leadership role
- Federal funding bill includes $2M for Oakland County Transit for fleet expansion
- Webinar looks at ‘Less Restrictive Alternatives to Guardianship’
- Nessel launches form for reporting immigration action in Michigan
- Event provides day of hands-on STEM learning for local middle school girls
headlines National
- Inter American University of Puerto Rico School of Law back in compliance with ABA standard
- Chemerinsky: The Fourth Amendment comes back to the Supreme Court
- Reinstatement of retired judge reversed by state supreme court
- Mass tort lawyer suspended for 3 years for lying to clients
- Law firms in Minneapolis are helping lawyers, staff navigate unrest
- Federal judge faces trial on charges of being ‘super drunk’ while driving




