Date of Defense

4-21-2025

Date of Graduation

4-2025

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Mark Hurwitz

Second Advisor

Chelsea Huber

Third Advisor

Namita Sharma

Abstract

This thesis examines the evolving intersection of parental rights, child welfare, and mental health within the context of termination of parental rights proceedings. Historically, mental illness was often viewed as a categorical disqualifier for parenting, with courts relying on stigmatized assumptions rather than individualized evaluations. These early judicial approaches, influenced by eugenics and social biases, as exemplified by Buck v. Bell (1927), led to systemic injustices and overly broad state interventions into family life.

Through a doctrinal and historical legal analysis, this thesis traces how U.S. courts have gradually moved from rigid, diagnosis-based determinations toward more nuanced, evidence-based standards. It divides the legal evolution into three key eras: the Pre-Modern Era (early 20th century), the Mid-20th Century Era, and the Late-20th Century to Present Era. Each era reflects shifts in judicial reasoning, from automatic exclusions to the adoption of the Best Interest of the Child (BIC) standard and later the requirement for clear and convincing evidence, as mandated in Santosky v. Kramer (1982).

The thesis also analyzes landmark cases such as Stanley v. Illinois (1972), Alsager v. District Court (1975), and Michigan-specific rulings including In re Sanders (2014) and In re Smith-Taylor (2021). These cases highlight the need for individualized assessments and procedural safeguards, especially in instances where mental illness is cited as a factor in termination decisions. While modern courts are increasingly attuned to the complexities of mental health, significant challenges remain, particularly regarding due process, evidentiary standards, and equitable access to legal representation for indigent or mentally ill parents.

In exploring Michigan’s statutory framework under MCL 712A.19b, this work evaluates how procedural protections and service provision obligations interact with mental health considerations. It contends that while protecting child welfare is paramount, parental rights should not be curtailed absent robust legal justification. The thesis concludes with policy recommendations that call for reforms to ensure parents with mental health conditions receive fair hearings, individualized evaluations, and access to supportive services rather than facing termination rooted in outdated stereotypes or systemic barriers.

Ultimately, this research contributes to the ongoing discourse on balancing parental autonomy and child safety, underscoring the importance of maintaining constitutional protections in an area of law where the stakes are profound and permanent.

Access Setting

Honors Thesis-Open Access

Download

Included in

Psychology Commons

Share

COinS