Opinion of the Court

McCORMACK, J.

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of Michigan's one-parent doctrine. The one-parent doctrine permits a court to interfere with a parent's right to direct the care, custody, and control of the children solely because the other parent is unfit, without any determination that he or she is also unfit. In other words, the one-parent doctrine essentially imposes joint and several liability on both parents, potentially divesting either of custody, on the basis of the unfitness of one. Merely describing the doctrine foreshadows its constitutional weakness.

In the case before us, upon petition by the Department of Human Services (DHS), the trial court adjudicated respondent-mother, Tammy Sanders, as unfit but dismissed the allegations of abuse and neglect against respondent-appellant-father, Lance Laird. Laird moved for his children to be placed with him. Although Laird was never adjudicated as unfit, the trial court denied Laird's motion, limited his contact with his children, and ordered him to comply with a service plan. In justifying its orders, the court relied on the one-parent doctrine and the Court of Appeals' decision in In re CR, 250 Mich.App. 185, 646 N.W.2d 506 (2002), from which that doctrine derives.

Laird believes that the one-parent doctrine violates his fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of his children because it permits the court to enter dispositional orders affecting that right without first determining that he is an unfit parent. We agree. Because application of the one-parent doctrine impermissibly infringes the fundamental rights of unadjudicated parents without providing adequate process, we hold that it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Laird is the father of two boys: P, born in 2010, and C, born in 2011. Sanders is the boys' mother. Four days after C was born drug positive, the Jackson Circuit Court, acting on a petition filed by the DHS, removed C from Sanders's custody and placed the child with Laird. At that time, P was also in Laird's custody.

Several weeks later, the DHS filed an amended petition alleging that Laird had tested positive for cocaine, that Sanders had admitted "getting high" with Laird, and that Sanders had spent the night at Laird's home despite a court order that prohibited her from having unsupervised contact with the children. At a November 16, 2011 preliminary hearing, the court removed the children from Laird's custody and placed them in the custody of the DHS.1 Laird contested the allegations in the amended petition and requested an adjudication with respect to his fitness as a parent.

On February 7, 2012, Sanders pleaded no contest to the allegations of neglect and abuse in the amended petition. Laird declined to enter a plea and instead repeated his demand for an adjudication. Laird also moved to change the children's temporary placement from their paternal aunt to the children's paternal grandmother, with whom Laird then resided. The court conducted a placement hearing at which several witnesses, including Laird, testified. Laird admitted that he had allowed Sanders to spend one night at his house after the court removed the children from her custody. Laird claimed, however, that the children never saw Sanders that night. Laird also testified that he was on probation stemming from a domestic violence conviction. The court took the placement motion under advisement and maintained placement of the children with their aunt pending Laird's adjudication, which was scheduled for May 1, 2012.

A few weeks later, on April 18, 2012, the DHS dismissed the remaining allegations against Laird, and Laird's adjudication was cancelled. At a May 2, 2012 review hearing, the court ordered Laird to comply with services, including parenting classes, a substance-abuse assessment, counseling, and a psychological evaluation. Laird's contact with his children was restricted to supervised parenting time, and placement of the children continued with their aunt. On August 22, 2012, Laird moved for immediate placement of the children with him. Laird argued that the court had no legal authority to condition the placement of his children on his compliance with a service plan because he had not been adjudicated as unfit. The court, relying on the Court of Appeals' decision in CR, denied the motion.

Laird's application for interlocutory leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals was denied for lack of merit. In re Sanders Minors, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 18, 2013 (Docket No. 313385). This Court granted leave to appeal to address "whether the application of the one-parent doctrine violates the due process or equal protection rights of unadjudicated parents." In re Sanders, 493 Mich. 959, 828 N.W.2d 391 (2013).2

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether child protective proceedings complied with a parent's right to procedural due process presents a question of constitutional law, which we review de novo. In re Rood, 483 Mich. 73, 91, 763 N.W.2d 587 (2009) (opinion by CORRIGAN, J.). The interpretation and application of statutes and court rules are also reviewed de novo. In re Mason, 486 Mich. 142, 152, 782 N.W.2d 747 (2010). Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and we have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent. Taylor v. Gate Pharm., 468 Mich. 1, 6, 658 N.W.2d 127 (2003). We interpret court rules using the same principles that govern statutory interpretation. Haliw v. Sterling Hts., 471 Mich. 700, 704, 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005).

B. CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS IN MICHIGAN

A brief review of the court rules and statutes governing child protective proceedings is helpful here. The juvenile code, MCL 712A.1 et seq., establishes procedures by which the state can exercise its parens patriae authority over minors. These procedures are reflected in Subchapter 3.900 of the Michigan Court Rules. In Michigan, child protective proceedings comprise two phases: the adjudicative phase and the dispositional phase. See In re Brock, 442 Mich. 101, 108, 499 N.W.2d 752 (1993). Generally, a court determines whether it can take jurisdiction over the child in the first place during the adjudicative phase. Id. Once the court has jurisdiction, it determines during the dispositional phase what course of action will ensure the child's safety and well-being. Id.

The court's authority to conduct those proceedings is found at MCL 712A.2(b), which encompasses child protective proceedings generally. The first subsection of that statute provides the court with jurisdiction over a child in cases of parental abuse or neglect. MCL 712A.2(b)(1) (providing for jurisdiction over a juvenile whose parent "neglects or refuses to provide proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his or her health or morals"). To initiate a child protective proceeding, the state must file in the family division of the circuit court a petition containing facts that constitute an offense against the child under the juvenile code (i.e., MCL 712A.2(b)). MCL 712A.13a(2); MCR 3.961.3 If the court authorizes the petition, the court may release the child to a parent, MCR 3.965(B)(12)(a), or, if the court finds that returning the child to the home would be contrary to the child's welfare, order that the child be temporarily placed in foster care, MCR 3.965(B)(12)(b) and (C). The respondent parent can either admit the allegations in the petition or plead no contest to them. MCR 3.971. Alternatively, the respondent may demand a trial (i.e., an adjudication) and contest the merits of the petition. MCR 3.972. If a trial is held, the respondent is entitled to a jury, MCR 3.911(A), the rules of evidence generally apply, MCR 3.972(C), and the petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence one or more of the statutory grounds for jurisdiction alleged in the petition, MCR 3.972(E). When the petition contains allegations of abuse or neglect against a parent, MCL 712A.2(b)(1), and those allegations are proved by a plea or at the trial, the adjudicated parent is unfit. While the adjudicative phase is only the first step in child protective proceedings, it is of critical importance because "[t]he procedures used in adjudicative hearings protect the parents from the risk of erroneous deprivation" of their parental rights. Brock, 442 Mich. at 111, 499 N.W.2d 752.

Once a court assumes jurisdiction over a child, the parties enter the dispositional phase. Unlike the adjudicative phase, here the rules of evidence do not apply, MCR 3.973(E), and the respondent is not entitled to a jury determination of facts, MCR 3.911(A). The purpose of the dispositional phase is to determine "what measures the court will take with respect to a child properly within its jurisdiction and, when applicable, against any adult...." MCR 3.973(A) (emphasis added). The court's authority to enter these orders is found in MCL 712A.6.

The court has broad authority in effectuating dispositional orders once a child is within its jurisdiction. In re Macomber, 436 Mich. 386, 393-399, 461 N.W.2d 671 (1990). And while the court's dispositional orders must be "appropriate for the welfare of the juvenile and society in view of the facts proven and ascertained," MCL 712A.18(1), the orders are afforded considerable deference on appellate review, see In re Cornet, 422 Mich. 274, 278-279, 373 N.W.2d 536 (1985) (adopting the clear-error standard of review for dispositional orders).

If certain requirements are met, the court can terminate parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing, MCR 3.977(E);4 otherwise, the court continues to conduct periodic review hearings and may enter orders that provide for services, direct the child's placement, and govern visitation, MCR 3.973(F); MCR 3.974; MCR 3.975. Before the court enters any order of disposition, however, the DHS must prepare a case service plan that includes a "[s]chedule of services to be provided to the parent ... to facilitate the child's return to his or her home...." MCL 712A.18f(3)(d).5 That case service plan must also "provide for placing the child in the most family-like setting available and in as close proximity to the child's parents' home as is consistent with the child's interests and special needs." MCL 712A.18f(3). The court examines the case service plan pursuant to MCL 712A.18f(4) and MCR 3.973(F)(2), and frequently adopts the DHS's case service plan and orders compliance with the services contained in the plan.

Ultimately, the dispositional phase ends with a permanency planning hearing, which results in either the dismissal of the original petition and family reunification or the court's ordering the DHS to file a petition for the termination of parental rights.

C. THE ONE-PARENT DOCTRINE

Because the jurisdictional inquiry is focused on the child, once there has been an adjudication, either by trial or by plea, the court has jurisdiction over the child regardless of whether one or both parents have been adjudicated unfit. MCL 712A.2(b). In cases in which jurisdiction has been established by adjudication of only one parent, the one-parent doctrine allows the court to then enter dispositional orders affecting the parental rights of both parents. The one-parent doctrine is the result of the Court of Appeals' interpretation of Subchapter 3.9006 of the Michigan Court Rules in CR:

In simpler terms, the one-parent doctrine permits courts to obtain jurisdiction over a child on the basis of the adjudication of either parent and then proceed to the dispositional phase with respect to both parents. The doctrine thus eliminates the petitioner's obligation to prove that the unadjudicated parent is unfit before that parent is subject to the dispositional authority of the court.

D. CONSTITUTIONAL PARENTAL RIGHTS

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const., Am. XIV, § 1. Included in the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of due process is a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Among these fundamental rights is the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399-400, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). In the words of this Court, "[p]arents have a significant interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children, and the interest is an element of liberty protected by due process." In re JK, 468 Mich. 202, 210, 661 N.W.2d 216 (2003), citing Brock, 442 Mich. at 109, 499 N.W.2d 752.

The right to parent one's children is "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, and "is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests," Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (opinion by O'Connor, J.). The right is an expression of the importance of the familial relationship and "stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association" between child and parent. Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 844, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977).

A parent's right to control the custody and care of her children is not absolute, as the state has a legitimate interest in protecting "the moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor" and in some circumstances "neglectful parents may be separated from their children." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 652, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The United States Constitution, however, recognizes "a presumption that fit parents act in the best interest of their children" and that "there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of [fit parents] to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of [their] children." Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68-69, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (opinion by O'Connor, J.). Further, the right is so deeply rooted that "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents...." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

The United States Supreme Court has also recognized that due process demands that minimal procedural protections be afforded an individual before the state can burden a fundamental right. In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court famously articulated a three-part balancing test to determine "what process is due" when the state seeks to curtail or infringe an individual right:

In essence, the Eldridge test balances the costs of certain procedural safeguards — here, an adjudication — against the risks of not adopting such procedures. The Supreme Court has regularly employed the Eldridge test to determine the nature of the process due in child protective proceedings in related contexts. See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 758, 102 S.Ct. 1388 ("Evaluation of the three Eldridge factors compels the conclusion that use of a `fair preponderance of the evidence' standard in [parental rights termination] proceedings is inconsistent with due process."); Smith, 431 U.S. at 848-852, 97 S.Ct. 2094 (addressing New York City's procedures for removing a minor from a foster home).

Our due process inquiry is also informed by Stanley v. Illinois, a pre-Eldridge case in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment demands that a parent be entitled to a hearing to determine the parent's fitness before the state can infringe the right to direct the care, custody, and control of his or her children. Stanley, 405 U.S. at 649, 92 S.Ct. 1208. Stanley addressed an Illinois statutory scheme that declared the children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, to be dependents (i.e., wards of the state) without a fitness hearing at which neglect was proved.7 The Stanley Court found this scheme to be constitutionally infirm because it allowed the state to deprive Stanley of custody without first determining that he was unfit at a hearing:

The rule from Stanley is plain: all parents "are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody." Id. at 658, 92 S.Ct. 1208.

III. ANALYSIS

At the onset, we note that the Court of Appeals' interpretation in CR of MCL 712A.6 and MCR 3.973(A) would seemingly grant trial courts unfettered authority to enter dispositional orders, as long as the court finds them to be in the child's best interests.8 This Court, however, has a duty to interpret statutes as being constitutional whenever possible. Taylor, 468 Mich. at 6, 658 N.W.2d 127. Thus, if the Court of Appeals' interpretation permits trial courts to exercise their jurisdiction in a manner that impermissibly interferes with a parent's constitutional right to direct the care and custody of his or her child, as Laird argues, we are duty-bound to reject it.

A. THE ONE-PARENT PROBLEM

Laird's primary argument is that the one-parent doctrine is unconstitutional because it allows courts to infringe the rights of unadjudicated parents to direct the care, custody, and control of their children without an adjudication that those parents are unfit. According to Laird, the facts of this case well illustrate the flaws inherent in the one-parent doctrine in practice. After the DHS filed the neglect petition, Sanders entered a no-contest plea to the allegations against her. This allowed the court to assume jurisdiction over Laird's children. The DHS did not pursue any allegations against Laird, despite his demand for a trial. His fitness was never the subject of any hearing, and he was never adjudicated as unfit. Nevertheless, the court refused to grant Laird custody of his children and instead ordered him to comply with services ordered as part of the dispositional plan.9 Laird contends that this process — the one-parent doctrine at work — is forbidden by Stanley.

The DHS responds that Laird was afforded all the process that he was due by virtue of the dispositional proceedings. According to the DHS, the dispositional phase obviates an unadjudicated parent's right to a fitness hearing.

As the Court of Appeals explained in CR, its interpretation of MCR 3.973(A) permits the trial court to enter dispositional orders affecting the rights of "any adult," including the parental rights of unadjudicated parents, as long as the court has established jurisdiction over the child. CR, 250 Mich.App. at 202-203, 646 N.W.2d 506. Because we have a duty to interpret statutes and court rules as being constitutional whenever possible, we reject any interpretation of MCL 712A.6 and MCR 3.973(A) that fails to recognize the unique constitutional protections that must be afforded to unadjudicated parents, irrespective of the fact that they meet the definition of "any adult."10

Stanley is plain that Laird's right to direct the care, custody, and control of his children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed without some type of fitness hearing. We therefore begin our analysis by testing the DHS's contention that a dispositional hearing is a constitutionally sufficient process in light of the Eldridge factors. We conclude that under Eldridge, dispositional hearings are constitutionally inadequate; due process requires that every parent receive an adjudication hearing before the state can interfere with his or her parental rights.

First, the importance of the private interest at stake here — a parent's fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of his or her child free from governmental interference — cannot be overstated.11 It is a core liberty interest recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment. "Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388.

With respect to the second and third Eldridge factors, it is undisputed that the state has a legitimate and important interest in protecting the health and safety of minors and, in some circumstances, that the interest will require temporarily placing a child with a nonparent. Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652, 92 S.Ct. 1208. It is this interest that lies at the heart of the state's parens patriae power. But this interest runs parallel with the state's interest in maintaining the integrity of the family unit whenever possible. MCL 712A.1(3) ("This chapter shall be liberally construed so that each juvenile coming within the court's jurisdiction receives the care, guidance, and control, preferably in his or her own home, conducive to the juvenile's welfare and the best interest of the state.") (emphasis added); Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652-653, 92 S.Ct. 1208 ("[I]f Stanley is a fit father, the State spites its own articulated goals when it needlessly separates him from his family."); Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68-69, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (opinion by O'Connor, J.) ("[S]o long as a parent adequately cares for ... [his or her] children, there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of [his or her] children."); Santosky, 455 U.S. at 766-767, 102 S.Ct. 1388 ("[W]hile there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds."). When a child is parented by a fit parent, the state's interest in the child's welfare is perfectly aligned with the parent's liberty interest. But when a father or mother is erroneously deprived of his or her fundamental right to parent a child, the state's interest is undermined as well: "[T]he State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652, 92 S.Ct. 1208. In other words, the state ordinarily12 has an equally strong interest in ensuring that a parent's fitness, or lack thereof, is resolved before the state interferes with the parent-child relationship. Thus, the probable value of extending the right to an adjudication to each parent in a child protective proceeding benefits both public and private interests alike.

There is no doubt that requiring adjudication of each parent will increase the burden on the state in many cases. But there is also little doubt that an adjudication would significantly reduce any risk of a parent's erroneous deprivation of the parent's right to parent his or her children. The trial is the only fact-finding phase regarding parental fitness, and the procedures afforded respondent parents are tied to the allegations of unfitness contained in the petition. As this Court has stated, "The procedures used in adjudicative hearings protect the parents from the risk of erroneous deprivation" of their parental rights. Brock, 442 Mich. at 111, 499 N.W.2d 752.13

Dispositional hearings simply do not serve this same function. At the dispositional phase, the court is concerned only with what services and requirements will be in the best interests of the children. There is no presumption of fitness in favor of the unadjudicated parent.14 See MCL 712A.18f. The procedures afforded parents during the dispositional phase are not related to the allegations of unfitness because the question a court is answering at a dispositional hearing assumes a previous finding of parental unfitness.

While extending the right to an adjudication15 to all parents before depriving them of the right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children will impose additional burdens on the DHS, those burdens do not outweigh the risks associated with depriving a parent of that right without any determination that he or she is unfit, as the one-parent doctrine allows. Thus, consideration of the procedures afforded parents at the dispositional phase in light of the Eldridge factors requires us to reject the DHS's primary argument.

We also find unpersuasive the DHS's position that adjudication of one parent offers sufficient process to the other parent. An unadjudicated parent is not entitled to contest any allegations made against him or her at the other parent's adjudication hearing because the unadjudicated parent is not a party to that proceeding. While an unadjudicated parent can hope that the respondent parent is willing to vigorously contest the allegations made in the petition, as the facts here demonstrate, the unadjudicated parent will often be disappointed. The respondent parent may enter a plea, as is his or her right, or may choose not to defend the allegations as vigorously as the unadjudicated parent would prefer. Moreover, as a nonparty to those proceedings, it is difficult to see how an unadjudicated parent could have standing to appeal any unfavorable ruling.

We find similarly unconvincing the argument that the state is relieved of its initial adjudication burden because unadjudicated parents may have the opportunity to have their parental rights restored during the dispositional phase, if the unadjudicated parents have complied with the case services plan or court orders, or both, during the dispositional phase.16 The DHS's argument puts the plow before the mule. The possibility of a fix at the back end is not sufficient to justify a lack of process at the front end. Rather, the state must adjudicate a parent's fitness before interfering with his or her parental rights. Stanley, 405 U.S. at 658, 92 S.Ct. 1208. The arguments made by the DHS echo an argument the state of Illinois made in Stanley: because Stanley might have been able to regain custody of his children as a guardian or through adoption proceedings, no harm was done. Id. at 647, 92 S.Ct. 1208. The Court disagreed:

The same is true here. The state cannot deprive an unadjudicated parent of his or her constitutional parental rights simply because those rights may be restored at some future date. The Constitution demands more.17

B. MOOTNESS

Finally, we decline the DHS's invitation to dismiss this case as moot because Laird is currently incarcerated for violating federal drug-trafficking laws. An incarcerated parent can exercise the constitutional right to direct the care of his or her children while incarcerated, and Laird has tried to do just that.18 For example, an incarcerated parent can choose who will care for his children while he is imprisoned. In re Mason, 486 Mich. at 161 n. 11, 782 N.W.2d 747 ("Michigan traditionally permits a parent to achieve proper care and custody through placement with a relative."). At several times during the proceedings below, Laird requested that the children be placed with his mother, the children's parental grandmother. As long as the children are provided adequate care, state interference with such decisions is not warranted. As a result, Laird's complaint is not moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

We recognize that the state has a legitimate — and crucial — interest in protecting the health and safety of minor children. That interest must be balanced, however, against the fundamental rights of parents to parent their children. Often, these considerations are not in conflict because "there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (opinion by O'Connor, J.). When the state is concerned that neither parent should be entrusted with the care and custody of their children, the state has the authority — and the responsibility — to protect the children's safety and well-being by seeking an adjudication against both parents. In contrast, when the state seeks only to deprive one parent of the right to care, custody and control, the state is only required to adjudicate that parent. In this case, for example, there was no constitutional or jurisdictional impediment to disrupting the parental rights of Sanders, who was afforded the right to a determination of fitness.

Adjudication protects the parents' fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children, while also ensuring that the state can protect the health and safety of the children. Admittedly, in some cases this process may impose a greater burden on the state than would application of the one-parent doctrine because "[p]rocedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 656-657, 92 S.Ct. 1208. But as the United States Supreme Court made clear in Eldridge, constitutional rights do not always come cheap. The Constitution does not permit the state to presume rather than prove a parent's unfitness "solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 658, 92 S.Ct. 1208.

We accordingly hold that due process requires a specific adjudication of a parent's unfitness before the state can infringe the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship. In doing so, we announce no new constitutional right. Rather, we affirm that an old constitutional right — a parent's right to control the care, custody, and control of his or her children — applies to everyone, which is the very nature of constitutional rights. Because the one-parent doctrine allows the court to deprive a parent of this fundamental right without any finding that he or she is unfit, it is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We therefore overrule In re CR, vacate the order of the trial court, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

YOUNG, C.J., and MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, MARY BETH KELLY, and ZAHRA, JJ., concurred with McCORMACK, J.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

The issue here, as it generally is in constitutional cases, is whether the Legislature has acted in an unconstitutional manner by enacting statutes that for many years have provided the underpinnings for the so-called one-parent doctrine.1 I do not believe that it has. For that reason, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion's decision to vacate the order of the trial court, overrule In re CR, 250 Mich.App. 185, 646 N.W.2d 506 (2002), and hold that the one-parent doctrine, which has been a part of our statutory scheme for more than 70 years, is now unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, I would affirm the trial court and conclude that CR correctly held that the one-parent doctrine, as well as the statutes and court rules on which the doctrine is grounded, remain constitutional. The Legislature has adequately protected the due process rights of a parent of an abused or neglected child (a child whose other parent has already been adjudicated unfit) by requiring a hearing on the parent's fitness before the state can interfere with this parent's parental rights, and appellant here has been reasonably determined to be unfit after several such hearings.

I. FACTS AND HISTORY

Appellant Lance Laird and Tammy Sanders were never married, but are the parents of two young boys — P (born in 2010) and C (born in 2011). Soon after the youngest boy was born with drugs in his system, the DHS removed the child from Sanders's custody and placed him with Laird, where the other child was already living.2 However, a few weeks later when Laird himself tested positive for cocaine, the DHS removed the children from his custody and placed them with their paternal aunt. Sanders entered a no-contest plea to allegations of abuse and neglect. The trial court applied the one-parent doctrine to continue the children's placement with their aunt and order Laird to comply with a service plan, including psychological evaluation, parenting classes, substance abuse assessment, random drug screens, maintenance of housing and employment, and terms of probation stemming from a previous domestic violence conviction.

Laird filed a motion seeking immediate placement of his children with him and challenging the one-parent doctrine. Following a hearing at which several witnesses, including Laird himself, testified, the trial court, relying on CR, denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal for lack of merit. In re Sanders Minors, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 18, 2013 (Docket No. 313385). This Court granted leave to appeal and directed the parties to address "whether the application of the one-parent doctrine violates the due process or equal protection rights of unadjudicated parents." In re Sanders, 493 Mich. 959, 828 N.W.2d 391 (2013).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Questions involving the interpretation of statutes and court rules are reviewed de novo. People v. Buie, 491 Mich. 294, 304, 817 N.W.2d 33 (2012). Questions of constitutional law are also reviewed de novo. Id. It is well established that

"[W]e interpret court rules using the `same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes,'" Buie, 491 Mich. at 304, 817 N.W.2d 33, and therefore court rules, like statutes, are presumed to be constitutional.3 (Citation omitted.)

III. ANALYSIS

A. THE ONE-PARENT DOCTRINE

Child-protective proceedings typically begin with the state filing a petition in the trial court alleging that a parent has abused or neglected a child. MCL 712A.13a(2); MCR 3.961. Then comes the adjudicative phase, in which it is determined whether the parent abused or neglected the child as alleged in the petition and thus whether the court has jurisdiction over the child. During this adjudicative phase, a parent can admit the allegations, plead no contest to the allegations, or demand a trial. MCR 3.971; MCR 3.972. Once a parent has admitted the allegations or pleaded no contest, or the fact-finder has found "evidence of abuse [or] neglect proved by a preponderance of the legally admissible evidence presented at the adjudication, [the court has jurisdiction over the child, and] it then proceeds to the dispositional phase of the protective proceedings." CR, 250 Mich.App. at 200-201, 646 N.W.2d 506. During the dispositional phase, the court will "determine what measures [it] will take with respect to a child," MCR 3.973(A), and in doing so, the court "may make orders affecting adults as in the opinion of the court are necessary for the physical, mental, or moral well-being of [the child] under its jurisdiction," MCL 712A.6. As this Court explained in In re Brock, 442 Mich. 101, 108, 499 N.W.2d 752 (1993):

The so-called one-parent doctrine allows a trial court to exercise jurisdiction over a child on the basis of the adjudication of only one parent. In other words, after one parent has been adjudicated, the court does not have to adjudicate the other parent, but instead can proceed to the dispositional phase. It is undisputed that the Legislature incorporated the one-parent doctrine into its statutory scheme and that this Court similarly incorporated the doctrine into its court rules. Most notably, MCL 712A.2 provides, in pertinent part:

The court has the following authority and jurisdiction:

MCL 712A.2(b) employs the singular form of "parent" and thus does not require that both parents be adjudicated in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the child.5 In addition, MCL 712A.6 provides:

Accordingly, once the court adjudicates one parent, pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b) the court can exercise jurisdiction over the child and, pursuant to MCL 712A.6, in exercising that jurisdiction, the court can "make orders affecting adults as in the opinion of the court are necessary for the physical, mental, or moral well-being" of the child. This makes sense because if a child is being abused or neglected, it is imperative that a court have the power to immediately intervene and to intervene effectively. "[A] juvenile court must be afforded the flexibility to assume jurisdiction over a child based on findings of maltreatment against one parent. This authority is essential to ensuring that the court has the ability to issue orders to remedy the abuse or neglect by the offending parent." Sankaran, Parens Patriae Run Amuck: The Child Welfare System's Disregard for the Constitutional Rights of Nonoffending Parents, 82 Temp L Rev 55, 84 (2009).

The one-parent doctrine has similarly been incorporated into the Michigan Court Rules. For example, MCR 3.973(A) provides:

In addition, MCR 3.973(F)(2) provides:

Accordingly, as the Court of Appeals explained in CR, 250 Mich.App. at 202-203, 205, 646 N.W.2d 506:

Laird concedes and the majority opinion agrees that the court can exercise jurisdiction over a child on the basis of the adjudication of only one parent. Accordingly, Laird concedes and the majority opinion again agrees that the trial court had jurisdiction over the children at issue here because their mother had entered a no-contest plea to the allegations in the amended petition. See ante at 533 n.8 ("[T]he trial court properly assumed jurisdiction over the children based on Sanders's plea."). However, Laird argues and the majority opinion agrees that the court violated his due process rights by relying on the one-parent doctrine to enter an order taking away his children and directing him to comply with a service plan without first adjudicating him as unfit. Although the Court of Appeals has addressed this issue many times and has consistently held that the one-parent doctrine does not violate due process, this Court has not yet addressed the issue. See, e.g., In re Slater/Weimer, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued March 25, 2014 (Docket No. 317132), p. 2, 2014 WL 1234206 (opinion by MARKEY, J.); In re Farris, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 8, 2013 (Docket Nos. 311967, 312193, and 312194), pp 5-6, 2013 WL 4034353;9 In re Mays, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 6, 2012 (Docket No. 309577), p. 4, 2012 WL 6097295 (Mays II);10 In re Rohmer, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 14, 2012 (Docket No. 308745), p. 3, 2012 WL 3321132; In re Camp, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 9, 2006 (Docket No. 265301), 2006 WL 1237030, lv. den. 476 Mich. 853, 717 N.W.2d 872 (2006); In re Church, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 11, 2006 (Docket Nos. 263541 and 265112), 2006 WL 933373, lv. den. 475 Mich. 899, 717 N.W.2d 855 (2006).11 This Court expressed an interest in addressing the constitutionality of the one-parent doctrine in In re Mays, 490 Mich. 993, 994 n. 1, 807 N.W.2d 307 (2012) (Mays I), stating:

However, this Court did not address the issue in Mays I because the appellant-father had failed to preserve the issue in the trial court or the Court of Appeals. Id.

B. DUE PROCESS

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" US Const, Am XIV, § 1. "It is well established that parents have a significant interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children," and "[t]his interest has been characterized as an element of `liberty' to be protected by due process." Brock, 442 Mich. at 109, 499 N.W.2d 752. Indeed, "[t]he liberty interest at issue in this case — the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children — is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (opinion by O'Connor, J.).12 And this interest "does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

"Where procedural due process must be afforded because a `liberty' or `property' interest is within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection, there must be determined `what process is due' in the particular context." Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 847, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977). "`"[D]ue process," unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances.'" Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), quoting Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961). Instead, "`[d]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.'" Smith, 431 U.S. at 848, 97 S.Ct. 2094, quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). "`[T]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation'...." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 650, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), quoting Cafeteria Workers, 367 U.S. at 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743. "It is true that `[b]efore a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded opportunity for some kind of a hearing, "except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event."'" Smith, 431 U.S. at 848, 97 S.Ct. 2094, quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (citation omitted). "But the hearing required is only one `appropriate to the nature of the case.'" Smith, 431 U.S. at 848, 97 S.Ct. 2094, quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). The following factors should generally be considered when determining "what process is due":

C. THE ONE-PARENT DOCTRINE AND DUE PROCESS

1. PRIVATE INTEREST

The first factor to be considered is "the private interest that will be affected by the official action[.]" Id. "The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." Stanley, 405 U.S. at 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208. "It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children `come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements.'" Id., quoting Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 95, 69 S.Ct. 448, 93 L.Ed. 513 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (alteration in original). "[T]here is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (opinion by O'Connor, J.). "Accordingly, so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children." Id. at 68-69, 120 S.Ct. 2054.

2. THE RISK OF ERRONEOUS DEPRIVATION OF AN INTEREST

The next factor to be considered is "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used...." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893. "The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be condemned to suffer grievous loss." Santosky, 455 U.S. at 758, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (citations and quotation marks omitted).13 "[T]he degree of potential deprivation that may be created by a particular decision is a factor to be considered in assessing the validity of any administrative decisionmaking process." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 341, 96 S.Ct. 893. "`[T]he possible length of wrongful deprivation of ... benefits [also] is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interests.'" Id. (citation omitted) (alteration in original).

With regard to this factor, it is important to remember that the issue we address in the instant case concerns the propriety of a parent of an abused or neglected child (a child whose other parent has already been adjudicated as unfit) being deprived of the adjudicative phase of a child-protective proceeding. We are not addressing a criminal proceeding, and we are not addressing a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding. "Child protective proceedings are not criminal proceedings." Brock, 442 Mich. at 107, 499 N.W.2d 752. "The purpose of child protective proceedings is the protection of the child...." Id. "The juvenile code is intended to protect children from unfit homes rather than to punish their parents." Id. at 108, 499 N.W.2d 752. The adjudicative phase only determines whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the child. In Brock, 442 Mich. at 115, 499 N.W.2d 752, this Court described the adjudicative phase as the "initial phase wherein the court acquires jurisdiction in order to attempt to alleviate the problems in the home so that the children and the parents can be reunited...."

The degree of interference with the parent's rights over the child after a finding that jurisdiction exists is largely dependent on the circumstances. As this Court has recognized, "[u]pon a finding of jurisdiction, the [family] court has several options, one of which is to return the children to their parents. Not every adjudicative hearing results in removal of custody." Id. at 111, 499 N.W.2d 752.14 Simply put, a finding of jurisdiction does not necessarily, or immediately, foreclose the parent's rights to his or her child. "Moreover, in order to permanently terminate respondents' parental rights, further hearings would be required, and the statutory elements for termination must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at 111-112, 499 N.W.2d 752.

"[T]he fairness and reliability of the existing ... procedures" must also be considered. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 343, 96 S.Ct. 893. As the Court of Appeals explained in Mays II, unpub. op. at 3-5:

Given the protections afforded to parents by the provisions discussed above, "the risk of an erroneous deprivation" of a parent's interest, if any, is minimal.

As discussed more later, I believe that I reach a different result than the majority opinion partly because while the majority opinion only fleetingly acknowledges the interests of the children, I believe this to be the most important interest at issue here. The other reason we reach different results, in my opinion, is attributable to the majority opinion's erroneous assumptions that "[t]he [adjudication] trial is the only fact-finding phase regarding parental fitness," "[t]he statutes and court rules governing the dispositional phase ... simply do not demand any fitness determination," and "[t]here is no presumption of fitness in favor of the unadjudicated parent." This is not accurate. As addressed earlier, the statutory provisions and court rules, as they should, presume that parents are fit and require the state to prove a parent's unfitness before the state can remove a child from a parent's custody. See, for example, MCL 712A.18f(1)(c) and (d) and (4) and MCR 3.973(F)(2), which only allow the court to remove a child from a parent's custody if doing so would be "necessary in the interest of the child," after considering the "[l]ikely harm to the child if the child were to be separated from his or her parent" and the "[l]ikely harm to the child if the child were to be returned to his or her parent," and even then requires the court to specify in the order what "reasonable efforts have been made to prevent the child's removal from his or her home...."17 In addition, the state must prove that a parent remains unfit in order for the state to continue depriving a parent of his or her right to the custody of his or her child. See, for example, MCL 712A.19(6)(d) and (e) and (8), which requires the court to "determine the continuing necessity and appropriateness of the child's placement" after considering the "[l]ikely harm to the child if the child continues to be separated from the child's parent" and the "[l]ikely harm to the child if the child is returned to the child's parent." See also MCL 3.975. Finally, "[a] permanency planning hearing shall be conducted to review the status of the child and the progress being made toward the child's return home...." MCL 712A.19a(3). If "the court determines at a permanency planning hearing that the return of the child to his or her parent would not cause a substantial risk of harm to the child's life, physical health, or mental well-being, the court shall order the child returned to his or her parent." MCL 712A.19a(5); see also MCR 3.976(E)(2).18

While I agree with the majority opinion that the state, absent exigent circumstances,19 cannot remove a child from a parent's custody or otherwise interfere with a parent's parental rights without first finding that the parent is unfit, I do not believe that our current statutory scheme, encompassing as it does the one-parent doctrine, allows the state to do so.20 As discussed earlier, "`[s]tatutes are presumed to be constitutional, and courts have a duty to construe a statute as constitutional unless its unconstitutionality is clearly apparent.'" Advisory Opinion, 490 Mich. at 307, 806 N.W.2d 683 (citation omitted). Accordingly, if it is possible to reasonably construe statutes to avoid unconstitutionality, it is this Court's duty to do so. Evans Prods. Co. v. State Bd. of Escheats, 307 Mich. 506, 548, 12 N.W.2d 448 (1943) ("We are compelled to construe Act No. 170, in accordance with well-defined rules of statutory construction, in such manner as to avoid constitutional pitfalls, if this can be reasonably done within the legislative intent."). Because I believe it is possible to reasonably construe the statutes (as well as the court rules) at issue here to avoid unconstitutionality, it is our obligation to do this. See Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 657, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297 (1895) ("The elementary rule is that every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."). It is entirely reasonable to construe the pertinent statutes and court rules as requiring a finding of unfitness before the state can interfere with parental rights.21 Although these statutes and court rules do not require this finding of unfitness to be made during the adjudicative phase of the proceedings, I see nothing in the Constitution that would require such a finding to be made during that particular phase. Therefore, unlike the majority opinion, I do not find it necessary to strike down as unconstitutional any of the pertinent statutes and court rules. "In assessing what process is due in this case, substantial weight must be given to the good-faith judgments of the individuals charged" by "we the people" to adopt fair procedures — the Legislature — "that the procedures they have provided assure fair consideration...." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 349, 96 S.Ct. 893. The majority opinion, as far as I can see, does not accord any weight to the good-faith judgments of the Legislature, and instead of presuming that the statutes and court rules at issue are constitutional, it presumes from the very beginning the opposite, which is yet another reason why I reach a different result.

The fairness of the procedures adopted by the Legislature is well demonstrated by the particular facts of this case. As Laird concedes, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the children given the mother's no-contest plea. At this point, the children were placed with Laird and it was only after he tested positive for cocaine that the children were removed from his care. In other words, Laird was not presumed unfit. Instead, he was clearly presumed fit; otherwise the children would never have been placed with him to begin with.22 However, Laird then proved himself to the DHS and the trial court as being unfit by testing positive for cocaine. See Farris, unpub. op. at 7 ("Though a trial court may not presume that a parent is unfit, Farris's conduct throughout the course of this case demonstrated that he was not a fit parent.") (citation omitted). It was only at this point that the decision to place the children with Laird was reevaluated — at the point at which the court became aware that Laird had tested positive for cocaine, had been arrested for distributing cocaine,23 had stopped participating in random drug screens, had been getting high with the children's mother, and had allowed the children's mother to have contact with the children even though the DHS had told him not to allow her to have such contact.24 Laird lived with his mother and there were concerns about her as well, including significant mental health issues, as well as a history of interaction with the DHS. There was also no available bedroom for the children at Laird's mother's house, the court was aware that Laird remained on probation for domestic violence, and the court knew that the psychologist who had conducted an evaluation of Laird had concluded that

The court considered all this information, including Laird's own testimony, and decided that Laird was, at least temporarily, an unfit parent. Because this determination was made (a determination that Laird does not even contest), the trial court had the requisite authority to place the children with someone other than Laird and to order him to comply with a service plan in order to regain custody of his children.

Laird argues that the trial court had to "adjudicate" him in order to find him unfit, and the majority opinion agrees with him in this regard. Laird and the majority opinion rely heavily on Stanley, 405 U.S. at 649, 92 S.Ct. 1208, which held that "as a matter of due process of law, Stanley was entitled to a hearing on his fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him...." Stanley was an unwed father who cared for his children until the children's mother died, at which point the state took his children away from him on the basis of an Illinois law that provided that the children of unwed fathers become wards of the state upon the death of the mother. The United States Supreme Court held that this law violated Stanley's right to due process because parents are entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children can be taken away. The state cannot simply presume that all unwed fathers are unfit parents. However, Stanley never specified what type of hearing must be convened. Therefore, Laird's reliance on Stanley for the proposition that he is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial during the adjudication phase of a child-protective proceeding is misplaced. Stanley merely held that a hearing is required, and in the instant case multiple hearings were held regarding the placement of Laird's children.25 The children were initially placed with him because he was presumed to be a fit parent (unlike Stanley), but when his drug problems resurfaced, the children were removed from his care.26 This removal, and whether this removal should continue, i.e., Laird's fitness as a parent, was the subject of multiple hearings — the November 16, 2011 preliminary hearing, the January 11, 2012 pretrial hearing, the February 7, 2012 adjudication hearing, the February 22, 2012 dispositional hearing, the May 2, 2012 dispositional review hearing, the August 22, 2012 dispositional review hearing, and the September 5, 2012 hearing on the motion for immediate placement. As explained by the trial court:

3. THE BURDENS OF ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

"[T]he final factor to be considered is the public interest." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 347, 96 S.Ct. 893. "[T]he interest of the state as parens patriae is for the welfare of the child." Brock, 442 Mich. at 112-113, 499 N.W.2d 752. "[T]he State has an urgent interest in the welfare of the child...." Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs. of Durham Co., 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981).27 "The state's interest in protecting the child is aligned with the child's interest to be free from an abusive environment." Brock, 442 Mich. at 113 n. 19, 499 N.W.2d 752. That is, the child's interest and the state's interest overlap and are both relevant considerations in the due process analysis. Given this overlap, it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider the state's interest without at the same time considering the child's interest. Therefore, both the state's interest and the child's interest must be taken into account when considering this final factor. See Santosky, 455 U.S. at 766, 102 S.Ct. 1388 ("Two state interests are at stake in parental rights termination proceedings — a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings.").

"`The child has an interest in the outcome of the fact-finding hearing independent of that of the parent.'" Brock, 442 Mich. at 113 n. 19, 499 N.W.2d 752 (citation omitted).28 Children have an interest in being protected from abusive and neglectful parents. And "the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children who are neglected or abused by their parents." Mays II, unpub. op. at 2. "[I]n child abuse proceedings, `the rights of parents are a most essential consideration, but we further recognize that the best interests and welfare of the child outweigh all other considerations.'" Brock, 442 Mich. at 114, 499 N.W.2d 752 (citation omitted). Parents "have an important liberty interest in the management of their children that is protected by due process. However, the child's welfare is primary in child protective proceedings." Id. at 114-115, 499 N.W.2d 752. "[T]he paramount purpose of the juvenile section of the Probate Code is to provide for the well-being of children." In re Macomber, 436 Mich. 386, 390, 461 N.W.2d 671 (1990). "One significant feature common to all child custody cases, regardless of the procedural label, is this Court's insistence upon the child's best interest prevailing as the predominant, if not sole, judicial concern." In re Ernst, 373 Mich. 337, 361, 129 N.W.2d 430 (1964). "`We recognize the long-established rule that the best interest of the child is of paramount importance and that it is our judicial duty to safeguard his welfare and care.'" Id. at 369, 129 N.W.2d 430 (citations omitted). "The paramount question under the law in all cases of this character is the welfare of the child. All other considerations must yield to this one." Id. at 370, 129 N.W.2d 430 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Because "the risk of an erroneous deprivation" of a parent's interest is already minimal with the current procedures in place, the added or marginal value, if any, that would be served by requiring both parents to be adjudicated before the court could proceed to the dispositional phase is considerably outweighed by the added burdens that would be imposed on the state and children. As even the majority opinion recognizes, "[t]here is no doubt that requiring adjudication of each parent will increase the burden on the state...." See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893 (stating that "the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards" as well as the "fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail" should be considered when determining what process is due). This is far less important, however, than the fact that any added or marginal value of the new safeguards would be considerably outweighed by the additional burdens on the children involved. See id. at 347, 96 S.Ct. 893 (stating that "the administrative burden and other societal costs that would be associated with requiring [the additional or substitute procedural requirement], as a matter of constitutional right," should also be considered) (emphasis added). Once it has been determined following a jury trial that a child has been abused or neglected by one parent, that child should not have to wait for a secure placement until it has been determined, following an additional jury trial, that the other parent — most particularly one who has actually resided in the same household as the abusing or neglecting parent — is implicated in the same abuse or neglect.

Abolishing the one-parent doctrine, as the majority opinion does today, will cost the state in terms of time, financial resources, and social-services manpower because it will now have to adjudicate both parents as unfit before it can even exercise jurisdiction over abused and neglected children.29 However, this is the least of the burdens imposed by judicial abolition of the doctrine. Rather, it is the additional costs and burdens that will now be placed on abused and neglected children themselves that is most troubling. These children, who are in the greatest need of expedited public protection, may eventually be afforded that protection, but considerably less quickly because a parent (again, most particularly a parent who has resided in the same household as the adjudicated and unfit parent) will for the first time become constitutionally entitled to a jury trial.30 Because I do not believe the latter is required by our Constitution, and because it is obvious that this will ensure that a child will remain for a longer time with the unadjudicated parent who may have resided in close proximity with the adjudicated and unfit parent, I respectfully dissent.31 Although I agree with the majority opinion that all parents are entitled to due process in the child-protective context, with the presumption of fitness and the burden of proof to the contrary resting on the state, I see no constitutional barriers to the long-established procedures in this state in guaranteeing that such a fitness determination is fairly made.32

While the majority opinion recognizes that "requiring adjudication of each parent will increase the burden on the state," it does not acknowledge the greater risk that the formal adjudication it requires of each parent will increase the burdens on the abused or neglected child, who may remain in an unsecure position for a prolonged period. Just as the majority opinion's failure to recognize that the current procedural requirements adequately protect parents' rights has caused it to conclude that the risks of erroneously depriving parents of their rights are great, its failure to recognize that requiring adjudication of each parent will increase the burden on abused and neglected children has caused it to conclude that the additional burdens that will be imposed as a result of requiring adjudication of each parent are minimal. This in turn has caused the majority opinion to conclude that "those burdens do not outweigh the risks associated with depriving a parent of [his or her] right[s]...." When the risks and the burdens are calculated more realistically, I believe it is clear that the latter considerably outweigh the former. As explained earlier, the risks are low because the Legislature has already adequately afforded a range of protections for parental rights, while the burdens are high because abused and neglected children in many cases will be left for significantly longer periods of time than are necessary in the care of a parent who may ultimately be proved unfit. While I agree with the majority opinion that "constitutional rights do not always come cheap," I do not agree that there is any constitutional right to a jury trial in the instant context; while the parent of an abused or neglected child has an undeniable right to due process, this can take many reasonable forms.

4. SUMMARY

Given (a) the interest of children in being protected from abusive and neglectful parents, (b) the public's legitimate interest in protecting children from abusive and neglectful parents, (c) the fact that Laird was only deprived of a trial during the initial phase of the child-protective proceedings, which simply determines whether the trial court possesses jurisdiction over the children, (d) the fact that Laird's rights to his children were adequately protected during the child-protective proceedings, and (e) the significant costs that would be inflicted on abused and neglected children of this state by entitling both parents to a trial on their unfitness before allowing the state to intervene to protect these children, I do not believe that Laird's constitutional rights to due process were violated by depriving him of a trial at the adjudicative phase of the process.33

In summary, I agree with the majority opinion that (a) pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b), "once there has been an adjudication, either by trial or by plea, the court has jurisdiction over the child regardless of whether one or both parents have been adjudicated unfit"; (b) "[p]arents have a significant interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of their children, and the interest is an element of liberty protected by due process"; (c) "there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children"; (d) "all parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody," except that "[i]n the case of an imminent threat of harm, the state may take the child into custody without prior court authorization or parental consent"; (e) "the state has a legitimate and important interest in protecting the health and safety of minors"; (f) "requiring adjudication of each parent will increase the burden on the state"; (g) "constitutional rights do not always come cheap"; and (h) "Laird's complaint is not moot." (Citations and quotation marks omitted.) However, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion's conclusion that both parents are constitutionally entitled to a jury trial on their fitness before children can be removed from their custody and placed within the protective jurisdiction of the court.

5. THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM

Concerning due process, it is always possible to extend additional procedural rights and entitlements to persons who come into contact with the government, as criminal defendants, public employees, consumers of public services, regulated parties, recipients of social-services benefits, or parents of abused and neglected children. Additional hearings and additional appeals can always be convened, more protective rules of evidence can always be prescribed, and broader compliance with ever finer details of process can always be required. There is simply no end to the argument that "fairness" requires something more, and there is little specificity in the Due Process Clause that either sustains or refutes most such arguments.

It is for this reason that the principle of deference to the constitutional judgments of the legislative and executive branches is of critical importance here. The threshold "presumption of constitutionality" of laws and rules enacted by the accountable branches of government is not a principle of jurisprudence deserving of mere passing reference, but, particularly in realms such as that of due process in which the constitutional text is so relatively open-ended and arguably compatible with alternative understandings of "fairness," it is a presumption necessary to ensuring that the judgments of the people and their elected representatives are not casually replaced by the contrary judgments of the judiciary.

What lies at the heart of the "presumption of constitutionality" is that the burden of persuasion rests heavily with the party seeking to upend the legal status quo to compellingly demonstrate that the people's elected representatives have erred in their understanding of the Constitution, and thus that the extraordinary power of judicial review should be exercised to strike down what has been enacted in the course of republican governance. As the breadth and open-endedness of a constitutional provision becomes increasingly pronounced, this does not become a warrant for the exercise of judicial discretion and intervention, but instead a warrant for the exercise of judicial deference-a respect for a broad range of judgments on the part of the legislative and executive branches. For when it is uncertain whether the people's representatives have acted within the purview of the Constitution, when people can reasonably disagree about whether a particular procedure is or is not required by due process, it is then that the "presumption of constitutionality" becomes most important. Otherwise, the presumption is little more than cant, mere formalism, as opposed to a genuine limitation on the exercise of judicial power within our constitutional architecture of separated powers.

The "presumption of constitutionality," if it means anything, signifies that the burden rests upon the judiciary, as a precondition to the invalidation of a law enacted through the representative process, to affirmatively demonstrate incompatibility of that law with the Constitution. It is not the people's obligation to demonstrate constitutionality, but the judiciary's obligation to demonstrate the contrary. It is simply not enough that a tribunal believes that it would be "better" to do things differently than the people have chosen. Rather, it is the court's obligation to establish that under no reasonable understanding of the Constitution could it countenance what the people have understood it to countenance.

What is further implicit in the "presumption of constitutionality" is that the legislative and executive branches must be viewed as no less committed than the judicial branch to upholding the Constitution, the principles of which include that citizens who interact with the government must be treated fairly and in accordance with the requirements of due process. Legislators, governors, and members of the cabinet each take an oath to support the Constitution, just as do judges. And it must be presumed that because the former are reasonably capable of reading the Constitution — a document never intended to be the exclusive province of lawyers and judges, but intended to be accessible to all citizens — legislators, governors, and members of the cabinet are also reasonably capable of comprehending their obligations under the Constitution, and reasonably capable of acting in accordance with these obligations. All of this is implied by the "presumption of constitutionality," and it is a presumption, if the separation of powers is to be maintained, that must be taken seriously when the representatives of the people act on behalf of those in whose name the Constitution was ratified.

And for at least 70 years, not only have the legislative and executive branches of this state acted to protect the interests of abused and neglected children through the enactment of laws that have allowed for the one-parent doctrine, but the judicial branch itself during this time has understood the laws underlying this doctrine to be fully constitutional, regularly reviewing and applying their provisions in countless numbers of cases involving abused and neglected children and their parents. No court of this state has previously understood these laws to run afoul of the supreme law of the land or of our state. At least not until today, when the people and their representatives have been newly informed that "fairness" now requires something considerably more.

What is it today that accounts for the nullification of the one-parent doctrine and (although it does not expressly say so) the laws that form this doctrine? What is it today that accounts for the conclusion that the accountable branches, as well as the judiciary, have for all these years erred by believing that the protections and guarantees conferred by our laws on the parents of abused and neglected children were sufficient under the Constitution? Is there some newly minted decision of the United States Supreme Court that has now compelled these conclusions? None that the majority opinion identifies. Are there new statutes or amendments that have been enacted by our Legislature that now warrant these results? Again, none that are cited. Are there new executive-branch policies or child-protective measures that have been introduced that now require these changes? None that are referred to. And is there any suggestion whatsoever that there has been some miscarriage of justice in the present case, or more generally that there have been injustices regarding our state's treatment of parents of abused and neglected children, or indeed even a single case indicative of serious shortcomings in this process? The majority opinion apprises us of none.

The majority opinion likely presages that this will be the first of many decisions of this Court elaborating ever more finely on what "fairness" requires in the context of the parents of abused and neglected children. There is no principled stopping point articulated that raises any barrier to future case-by-case-by-case expansions of due process. And as invariably tends to occur when matters that were once the subject of representative decision-making become "constitutionalized," there will be a long line of future decisions in which additional procedures, details, and hearings are successively layered on the child-protective process by the judiciary, ever more closely perhaps tracking the procedures, details, and hearings of the criminal justice process. As a result, the final disposition and placement of abused and neglected children will become increasingly delayed by trials and legal procedures, requiring, despite every justice's obvious solicitude for their interests, that abused and neglected children remain for extended periods in what child-protective workers might understandably view as a less-than-secure environment. And also as a result, the judgments of legislatures and governors, reached after committee and administrative hearings, the testimonies of witnesses of a wide variety of viewpoints, public debates inside and outside the chambers of government, and even occasionally after elections, will be replaced by the determinations of appellate judges, in which each new procedure, detail, and hearing becomes an issue of "constitutional right" and "entitlement." And thus once again, the realm of the lawyer and the judge expands, and the realm of ordinary citizens and those elected to represent them diminishes.

Our legislative and executive branches have adopted a broad array of procedures in support of the due process rights of the parents of the abused or neglected child. In the present case, Laird was afforded notice of multiple proceedings, an attorney to represent his interests at these proceedings, and an opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Yes, more procedures, more details, more hearings, and more "constitutional" guarantees could doubtlessly be constructed by this Court, but again it is always possible to fill in the blanks of the Due Process Clause with more "rights" and "guarantees," albeit at some point only at a cost to other legitimate rights and interests, in this case those of the abused or neglected child. The majority opinion is quite correct in recognizing that constitutional rights "do not always come cheap." However, it is for precisely that reason — that there are, in fact, costs to the devising of new constitutional rights — that a Court should take the utmost care, and exercise the utmost judicial humility, in deferring to the judgments and expertise of those public actors best equipped to reasonably balance the interests of abused and neglected children and their parents coming from seriously dysfunctional homes. And it is for the same reason that this Court should exercise the utmost care, and exercise the utmost judicial humility, in ensuring that any new expression of "constitutional rights" is genuinely grounded in the text and history of the Constitution and that the contrary judgments of the Legislature and the Governor are equally genuinely incompatible with that Constitution. Precisely because constitutional rights "do not always come cheap," this Court should seek to ensure that the "presumption of constitutionality" is faithfully honored to the point at which it can be genuinely said that the costs incurred by a new "constitutional right" must be incurred because that is what the Constitution compels, and the Constitution compels nothing less.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court and hold that In re CR correctly held that the one-parent doctrine, which has been a part of our statutory scheme for more than 70 years, is not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Legislature has adequately protected the due process rights of a parent of an abused or neglected child (a child whose other parent has already been adjudicated unfit) by requiring a hearing on the parent's fitness before the state can interfere with his or her parental rights.

VIVIANO, J., concurred with MARKMAN, J.