## Facts

- Cheryl Lynn Lee, the mother, and J.L., her oldest child, were members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; the Tribe intervened in the proceeding.
- The case involved a petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights to J.L., an “Indian child,” triggering the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
- From 1999 to 2006, the mother had four children; her parental rights to the three younger children had been terminated in earlier proceedings.
- Over multiple years, the Department of Human Services (DHS) provided the mother various remedial and rehabilitative services, including parenting-related and counseling-type services, but interventions did not result in reunification in the earlier matters.
- In the proceeding concerning J.L., DHS sought termination under ICWA’s heightened protections, including the “active efforts” requirement and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
- The trial court terminated parental rights to J.L., and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether ICWA § 1912(d) requires DHS to provide new or additional services in each new termination proceeding, or permits reliance on extensive past services if DHS performs a thorough, contemporaneous assessment of prior services and the parent’s response.
2. Whether ICWA § 1912(f) was satisfied where the mother claimed the courts used an improper conclusive presumption of unfitness based on past conduct, and whether the “likely serious emotional or physical damage” finding was supported beyond a reasonable doubt, including qualified expert testimony.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and upheld termination of the mother’s parental rights to J.L.
- The Court held ICWA does not categorically require DHS to offer new services each time termination is sought, but DHS must conduct a thorough, contemporaneous assessment of past services and the parent’s response before seeking termination without additional services.
- The Court rejected the claim that the lower courts applied a conclusive presumption of unfitness; past conduct was considered as evidence alongside current circumstances.
- The Court held the determination that continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child was supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony from qualified expert witnesses.

## Legal Principles

- Under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d), the party seeking termination of parental rights to an Indian child must show “active efforts” were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts were unsuccessful.
- “Active efforts” may be shown through extensive prior services plus a thorough, contemporaneous assessment of those services and the parent’s response; ICWA does not impose a per se rule requiring new services in every new termination case.
- Under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f), termination requires a determination supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including qualified expert witness testimony, that the parent’s continued custody is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
- Prior terminations and past parental conduct do not create a conclusive presumption under ICWA, but may be relevant evidence in assessing the likelihood of serious harm under the statutory standard.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed termination under ICWA, holding that active efforts may rely on prior services if DHS conducts a current assessment, and that termination was supported beyond a reasonable doubt—without an improper presumption of unfitness—through present evidence and qualified expert testimony showing likely serious harm from continued custody.


In re J.L., 483 Mich. 300, 770 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2009)