## Facts

- The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) sought court intervention after E.M., about two months old, was hospitalized for suspected abuse.
- Medical imaging showed multiple rib fractures at different healing stages and a healing right tibia fracture; E.M. also had a bruise on his chest.
- A child-protection physician opined the injuries reflected at least two separate incidents and were diagnostic of abuse.
- The father initially denied knowing how the injuries occurred, later described falls while carrying the child in a car seat, and ultimately testified he knew he had hurt his son.
- E.M. was an “Indian child” covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA).
- The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights at the initial disposition under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (j), and (k)(iii).
- On appeal, the father did not challenge statutory grounds for termination or the best-interests determination; he raised a constitutional challenge centered on MIFPA.

## Issues

1. Whether MCL 712B.15(2)’s “active efforts” requirement is unconstitutionally vague for not expressly stating an evidentiary standard for proving active efforts.
2. Whether the trial court made the findings required by ICWA/MIFPA, including active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and a determination that continued custody was likely to cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order.
- The court held MCL 712B.15(2) is not unconstitutionally vague because its language mirrors ICWA § 1912(d) and employs terms with a settled legal meaning.
- The court concluded the trial court made the required ICWA/MIFPA findings, supported by the record, including expert medical evidence of severe abuse and a risk of serious harm if the child were returned.
- The court rejected the father’s remaining ICWA/MIFPA compliance arguments.

## Legal Principles

- A termination order involving an Indian child requires a determination, supported by evidence, that “active efforts” were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful. (MCL 712B.15(2); ICWA § 1912(d))
- Statutory language is not void for vagueness where it is clear and provides meaningful guidance, including where mirrored federal statutory terms have an established legal meaning in case law.
- In ICWA/MIFPA cases, termination also requires a determination—supported by evidence including qualified expert testimony—that continued custody by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
- A parent’s concession of statutory grounds and best interests narrows appellate review to the remaining preserved legal and constitutional challenges.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights to an Indian child, holding that MIFPA’s active-efforts provision is sufficiently definite and that the trial court’s ICWA/MIFPA findings—including unsuccessful active efforts and a likelihood of serious harm if custody continued—were supported by the evidence.


In re England, 887 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)