By Bob Needham
Michigan Law
The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that small size alone does not mean a home is unfit for a child, thanks to the work of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic.
The clinic was appointed to the matter by the Wayne County Circuit Court, one of about six new cases the clinic takes on each year, said Professor Vivek Sankaran, director of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic.
“What is amazing about our students is that they read through the records and frame the issues, and as they do so, they discover problems and errors. In this case, we thought that there was a big problem in terms of how the trial court was thinking about housing—and the Court of Appeals agreed.”
In December 2020, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned to remove a child from his mother’s care in Detroit; years later, DHHS sought to terminate her parental rights. As described in the Court of Appeals’s recent opinion, the trial court had laid down a number of conditions for the mother to reunify with the child.
By January 2023, DHHS found that the only condition with which the mother was not in compliance was to “obtain safe and suitable housing.” She and the child’s father were living in an extended-stay motel, but a foster care worker concluded that although the room was safe, it was too small as a living situation.
Although the mother made some moves toward finding new housing, in April 2024, the court terminated her parental rights after a hearing. The trial court cited the unchanged housing situation as the primary reason.
Students Lucy Kates and Corey Lipton did the bulk of work on the appeal of that decision—researching and writing the brief, with Kates handling the oral argument as well. Clinic Administrator Jackie Julien provided critical assistance and support.
“They did a tremendous job writing what I thought was a really amazing brief,” Sankaran said. “Special credit goes to them for having a section in the brief on how hard it was to get housing in Detroit with the income that our client had, working full-time at a grocery store. It wasn’t a lack of effort. That really stood out to me as a step above what most lawyers would do.”
In its new ruling, the Court of Appeals agreed with the students’ brief. “Other than a bare assertion, the DHHS did not actually demonstrate…that the size of the motel room alone justified removal. Respondent-mother provided unrebutted testimony that she had sufficient space for a toddler bed, she could cook meals, and she had toys and clothing,” the court wrote.
“It is unclear why the extended-stay motel room was not appropriate, even if the room size might not have been ideal,” the court concluded.
The court overturned the mother’s termination of parental rights and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
“When we first started working on this case, I was searching for precedent about what constitutes safe and suitable housing, and I was really surprised to find that there wasn’t any,” Kates said. “It’s exciting that our case has finally generated that precedent.”
Sankaran said that the court’s recognition that “ideal is not the standard” is significant.
“The standard for separating a family is really about harm to a child. This is an important message to trial courts: You can’t keep kids in foster care because of reasons such as poverty. That is really important, because we have a lot of inconsistent practice in the state on this issue, specifically with regard to housing.
“I’m really proud of the ability of our students to take what look like common, everyday cases and transform them into legal principles that will have incredible significance across the state for years to come. It should be an inspiration to law students that if they want to fight injustices, they can make a big difference in a short period of time.”
Kates agreed.
“Being a part of this case, and especially getting to argue it in front of the Court of Appeals, has been the highlight of my time in law school. Knowing that our client and her five-year-old son are reunited is the most wonderful feeling. This is the kind of work I came to law school to do.”
Michigan Law
The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that small size alone does not mean a home is unfit for a child, thanks to the work of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic.
The clinic was appointed to the matter by the Wayne County Circuit Court, one of about six new cases the clinic takes on each year, said Professor Vivek Sankaran, director of the Child Welfare Appellate Clinic.
“What is amazing about our students is that they read through the records and frame the issues, and as they do so, they discover problems and errors. In this case, we thought that there was a big problem in terms of how the trial court was thinking about housing—and the Court of Appeals agreed.”
In December 2020, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) petitioned to remove a child from his mother’s care in Detroit; years later, DHHS sought to terminate her parental rights. As described in the Court of Appeals’s recent opinion, the trial court had laid down a number of conditions for the mother to reunify with the child.
By January 2023, DHHS found that the only condition with which the mother was not in compliance was to “obtain safe and suitable housing.” She and the child’s father were living in an extended-stay motel, but a foster care worker concluded that although the room was safe, it was too small as a living situation.
Although the mother made some moves toward finding new housing, in April 2024, the court terminated her parental rights after a hearing. The trial court cited the unchanged housing situation as the primary reason.
Students Lucy Kates and Corey Lipton did the bulk of work on the appeal of that decision—researching and writing the brief, with Kates handling the oral argument as well. Clinic Administrator Jackie Julien provided critical assistance and support.
“They did a tremendous job writing what I thought was a really amazing brief,” Sankaran said. “Special credit goes to them for having a section in the brief on how hard it was to get housing in Detroit with the income that our client had, working full-time at a grocery store. It wasn’t a lack of effort. That really stood out to me as a step above what most lawyers would do.”
In its new ruling, the Court of Appeals agreed with the students’ brief. “Other than a bare assertion, the DHHS did not actually demonstrate…that the size of the motel room alone justified removal. Respondent-mother provided unrebutted testimony that she had sufficient space for a toddler bed, she could cook meals, and she had toys and clothing,” the court wrote.
“It is unclear why the extended-stay motel room was not appropriate, even if the room size might not have been ideal,” the court concluded.
The court overturned the mother’s termination of parental rights and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
“When we first started working on this case, I was searching for precedent about what constitutes safe and suitable housing, and I was really surprised to find that there wasn’t any,” Kates said. “It’s exciting that our case has finally generated that precedent.”
Sankaran said that the court’s recognition that “ideal is not the standard” is significant.
“The standard for separating a family is really about harm to a child. This is an important message to trial courts: You can’t keep kids in foster care because of reasons such as poverty. That is really important, because we have a lot of inconsistent practice in the state on this issue, specifically with regard to housing.
“I’m really proud of the ability of our students to take what look like common, everyday cases and transform them into legal principles that will have incredible significance across the state for years to come. It should be an inspiration to law students that if they want to fight injustices, they can make a big difference in a short period of time.”
Kates agreed.
“Being a part of this case, and especially getting to argue it in front of the Court of Appeals, has been the highlight of my time in law school. Knowing that our client and her five-year-old son are reunited is the most wonderful feeling. This is the kind of work I came to law school to do.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
