DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled
unconstitutional a doctrine that lets authorities remove children from
their parents’ custody if just one parent is deemed unfit.
The
court’s 5-2 decision on Monday found that the more than 70-year-old
"one-parent doctrine" infringes on the due process rights of parents,
overturning lower courts’ rulings. The state must balance its
"legitimate" and "crucial" interest in protecting children "with the
fundamental rights of parents," the justices said.
The ruling stemmed from a case involving Lance Laird, a one-time Jackson County sheriff candidate.
Laird
contested a court’s decision to remove two sons from his home after he
tested positive for cocaine. The court also denied his requests for a
trial to determine whether he was fit to parent. The boys’ mother, Tammy
Sanders, admitted taking drugs with Laird and spent night at his home
despite a court order that prohibited her from having unsupervised
contact with children.
One boy previously had been removed from
the custody of his mother, Tammy Sanders, in 2011, days after the baby
tested positive for cocaine at birth. He was placed with Laird, whose
other son was living with him. Laird is currently in prison for
violating federal drug-trafficking laws.
The high court also
rejected Monday the Department of Human Services’ argument that Laird’s
case should be dismissed because of his imprisonment. Justices said
incarcerated parents can exercise their constitutional right to direct
the care of their children.
Department of Human Services spokesman Bob Wheaton said officials are reviewing the decision.
The
two dissenting justices, Judge Stephen Markman and Judge David Viviano,
disagreed that both parents are constitutionally entitled to a jury
trial on their fitness. Likewise, they wrote, Laird was found to be
unfit after several such hearings.
They added that children "in
the greatest need of expedited public protection" will receive it
"considerably less quickly because both parents are for the first time
constitutionally entitled to jury trials."
Justices in the
majority wrote that "in some cases this process may impose a greater
burden on the state." However, they continued, "constitutional rights do
not always come cheap."