In re Hicks/Brown: ADA Accommodations in Parental Rights Termination

Introduction

The case of In re Hicks/Brown, decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan on May 8, 2017, addresses critical intersections between family law and disability rights. Respondent Brown, an intellectually disabled parent, faced termination of her parental rights to two children. The central issues revolved around whether the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, particularly in accommodating Brown's intellectual disability as mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

This commentary delves into the background of the case, the court's findings, and the broader legal implications stemming from this precedent.

Summary of the Judgment

Brown sought to have her parental rights reinstated after the Department terminated them, arguing that the Department failed to accommodate her intellectual disability during efforts to reunify the family. The Wayne Circuit Court initially terminated Brown's parental rights, deeming that the Department had adequately attempted reunification. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, highlighting the Department's failure to provide reasonable accommodations as required by the ADA.

The Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed part of the Court of Appeals' judgment, vacated another part concerning the specific steps recommended for accommodation, and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings. The key takeaway is that reunification efforts under Michigan's Probate Code must consider and accommodate a parent's disabilities to be deemed reasonable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court’s reasoning:

In re Terry, 240 Mich.App. 14 (2000): This case established that objections to service plans must be raised promptly, preferably when the service plan is adopted or shortly thereafter, to be preserved for appeal.
ROBERTSON v. LAS ANIMAS Co. Sheriff's Dep't, 500 F.3d 1185 (C.A.10, 2007): This decision clarified that under the ADA, public entities must have knowledge of an individual's disability to be required to provide reasonable accommodations.
Pierce v. Dist. of Columbia, 128 F.Supp.3d 250 (D.D.C., 2015): Emphasized that public entities cannot adopt a passive stance regarding accommodation obligations once aware of an individual's disability.
In re Frey, 297 Mich.App. 242 (2012) and In re Hawkins, 2016 WL 7493986: These cases further explored the timeliness and adequacy of raised objections concerning service plans.

These precedents collectively underscore the necessity for timely and adequate accommodation of disabilities within legal proceedings involving parental rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interplay between Michigan's Probate Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under Michigan's Probate Code, the Department must make "reasonable efforts" to reunify families before terminating parental rights. The ADA mandates that public entities, like the Department, provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities, ensuring they are not discriminated against.

The court determined that:

The Department had clear knowledge of Brown's intellectual disability from as early as January 2013, evidenced by multiple assessments and treatment plans.
Despite this knowledge, the Department failed to provide reasonable accommodations, such as services from the Neighborhood Services Organization (NSO), which Brown's attorney had repeatedly requested.
The failure to accommodate Brown's disability meant that the Department did not fulfill its obligation under both the ADA and the Probate Code to make reasonable reunification efforts.

Furthermore, the court critiqued the Court of Appeals' imposition of specific steps for accommodation, asserting that such steps should be determined on a case-by-case basis by trial courts.

Impact

This judgment has significant ramifications for both family law and disability rights:

Reaffirmation of ADA Protections: The decision reinforces the necessity for public entities to actively accommodate individuals with disabilities, especially in sensitive areas like parental rights and family reunification.
Procedural Considerations: Courts must ensure that service plans are adequately tailored to accommodate disabilities, and any failure to do so can render termination orders premature and unjust.
Guidance for Future Cases: Future cases will likely reference In re Hicks/Brown when addressing the adequacy of reunification efforts and the necessity of accommodating disabilities, ensuring that parents with disabilities receive fair treatment under the law.
Policy Implementation: The Department and similar agencies may need to revise their protocols to better identify disabilities and implement necessary accommodations proactively.

Overall, the decision promotes a more inclusive and fair approach within the child welfare system, ensuring that parental rights are not unjustly terminated due to inadequate accommodation of disabilities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Michigan's Probate Code

The Probate Code governs matters related to family law in Michigan, including the termination of parental rights. Key provisions require the Department to make "reasonable efforts" to reunify families before considering termination, ensuring that parents are supported in addressing issues that led to court involvement.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is federal legislation that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Title II specifically mandates that public entities must provide reasonable accommodations to ensure full participation by individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service provided.

Reasonable Accommodation

Reasonable accommodation refers to necessary and appropriate modifications or adjustments in policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that individuals with disabilities can participate fully. In the context of this case, it involves providing Brown with services that address her intellectual disability, enabling her to effectively care for her children.

Service Plan

A service plan is a structured outline created by the Department detailing the services and support a parent must engage with to address issues preventing family reunification. It typically includes requirements like counseling, education, and supervised visits.

Conclusion

The In re Hicks/Brown decision underscores the essential obligation of public entities to accommodate disabilities when making critical decisions about parental rights. By intertwining the mandates of Michigan's Probate Code with the federal protections of the ADA, the court emphasizes that reunification efforts must be both diligent and adaptive to individual needs.

This case serves as a pivotal reminder that legal processes must account for the nuanced challenges faced by individuals with disabilities, ensuring that justice is both fair and inclusive. Moving forward, it sets a precedent that will influence how courts and governmental agencies approach family reunification, ultimately fostering a more equitable legal landscape.