Ensuring Voluntary Admissions in Child Protective Plea Hearings: Obligatory Record Completeness and Advisements

Introduction

In the matter In re T. Hewitt, Minor, the Michigan Supreme Court, by a majority order dated May 2, 2025, denied leave to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment that affirmed a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction based on the mother’s admission of domestic-violence exposure. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sought jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(2) after alleged domestic violence incidents in the home. Respondent‐mother, represented by counsel, entered a plea of no contest admitting only that her child had been exposed to domestic violence. The trial transcript was incomplete and revealed respondent’s confusion, interruptions by the father, and failure to record essential advisements required by Michigan Court Rule 3.971. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the record deficiencies and lack of proper advisement raised plain error affecting due process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal and the motion to appoint counsel, concluding that the issues did not merit review. No majority opinion explains in detail; the order simply states the Court is “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed.” Justice Thomas filed a detailed dissent, urging grant of leave to address whether the plea was “knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made,” as mandated by MCR 3.971(D)(1), and whether procedural defects in advisement and recordkeeping constituted plain error under In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1 (2019).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394 (2014): Outlines that, during adjudication in a child protective proceeding, the court must determine its authority to exercise jurisdiction.
MCR 3.971 & 3.972: Govern pleas of admission or no contest in child protective proceedings, requiring that such pleas be made “knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily.”
In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1 (2019): Clarifies the standard for plea advisements and the plain error framework when no objection is preserved.
In re SLH, 277 Mich App 662 (2008): Holds that failure to properly advise a respondent of rights under MCR 3.971(B) renders the plea “fatally defective.”
In re Jackisch/Stamm‐Jackisch, 340 Mich App 326 (2022) and In re Plump, 294 Mich App 270 (2011): Emphasize that being a victim of domestic violence alone is not a ground for termination of parental rights; only conduct exposing the child to harm suffices.
NCJFCJ Checklist (2011): Recommends safeguards against perpetrator coercion in dependency cases involving domestic violence.

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s order offers no substantive reasoning, but the dissent by Justice Thomas highlights critical due‐process concerns:

Incomplete Record: Large portions of the plea hearing transcript were inaudible or omitted, preventing review of whether the court accurately advised respondent of her rights and the factual basis of her admission.
Failure to Advise: The trial court did not repeat the statutory grounds for jurisdiction (MCR 3.971(B)(1)) nor advise respondent of appellate rights before accepting the plea (MCR 3.971(B)(6)).
Intimidation by Respondent‐Father: The father’s outbursts and physical presence in the courtroom may have undermined respondent’s ability to participate freely, implicating protection standards under the NCJFCJ guidelines.
Plain Error Standard: Under Ferranti, unpreserved errors are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights and the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. The dissent argues that the failures here meet that threshold.

Impact

Although leave to appeal was denied, the dissent signals heightened scrutiny of plea proceedings in child protective cases. Trial courts should:

Ensure a complete, verbatim record (including audio) of all colloquies under MCR 3.971.
Strictly comply with advisement requirements: rights to counsel, trial, witnesses, cross‐examination, consequences of the plea, and appellate review.
Recognize and mitigate coercion or intimidation, especially in domestic‐violence contexts.
Anticipate appellate review under the plain error standard when advisements or records are deficient.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Plea of No Contest/Admission: A formal statement by a parent that the allegations in a child protective petition are true, used to establish jurisdiction without a full trial.
MCR 3.971 Advisory Duties: Rules requiring the court to tell the parent, on the record, about rights given up and rights retained when entering a plea.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard applied when an issue was not objected to at trial; error must be clear, affect the outcome, and damage the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Jurisdictional Finding: Court’s determination that statutory grounds exist to assert authority over the child’s welfare.
Case Service Plan: A court‐ordered set of tasks the parent must complete to seek return of the child.

Conclusion

In re T. Hewitt underscores the fundamental requirement that admissions in child protective proceedings be knowing, understanding, and voluntary. The dissent’s detailed analysis serves as a warning: without a full record and strict compliance with MCR 3.971 advisements, a plea may be deemed fatally defective on plain error review. Trial judges, attorneys, and child welfare agencies must collaborate to safeguard parents’ due process rights and the integrity of judicial proceedings in sensitive dependency cases.