Juvenile Review Menu
A MINOR’S JUDICIAL BYPASS PROCEEDING FILE MAY BE RELEASED TO HER WHEN SHE REACHES THE AGE OF MAJORITY
F.G., minor, (Published #249039), November 23, 2004
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A TERMINATION PETITION IS APPROPRIATE IN THE COUNTY FROM WHICH A MINOR IS PLACED IN A GUARDIANSHIP SUBJECT TO A FAMILY PLAN FOR REUNIFICATION EVEN THOUGH THE NEGLECT PETITION THAT INITIATED THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED
In re: Zimmerman Minors, (Published #253112), November 4, 2004
PETITIONER IN A CHILD PROTECTION CASE MAY PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A RESPONDENT’S CRIMINALITY WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE RESPONDENT’S GUILT OR INNOCENCE. PRESENTING SUCH EVIDENCE DID NOT VIOLATE THE RESPONDENT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
In re: Max Unger and Tyler Unger, (Published #254908), November 2, 2004
THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINE WHETHER A JUVENILE’S INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS ARE VOLUNTARY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE IS OR IS NOT THE FOCUS OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONTop of Page
In re: Justin Scott Kuhl, (Unpublished #248261), October 28, 2004
MCR 2.004, WHICH STATES THAT PERSONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION IN THE TERMINATION TRIAL, DID NOT APPLY TO RESPONDENT BECAUSE SHE WAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RATHER THAN THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
In the Matter of Brittany Anisha Davis, Minor; In the Matter of Dwuan Rapheon Davis, Minor; Michigan Court of Appeals, # 255175/255176, Decided October 7, 2004
WHERE A RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED, BUT THE PETITIONER AND THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ICWA NOTICE PROVISIONS, REVERSAL IS NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED. THE COURT MAY, INSTEAD, CONDITIONALLY AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT’S TERMINATION ORDER AND REMAND THE MATTER TO ALLOW THE TRIAL COURT AND THE FIA TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE TO ANY INTERESTED TRIBE
In the Matter of Paige Elise Maule, Minor, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 250237, Decided October 5, 2004, Unpublished
WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT TO BE PAID IN A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE HAS BEEN RESERVED, THERE IS NO CHILD SUPPORT ORDER IN PLACE, AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY INQUIRE INTO THE RESPONDENT’S ABILITY TO SUPPORT HER CHILD UNDER MCL 710.51(6)
In the Matter of Sarah Marie Nicole Eickhoff, Minor, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 250237, Decided October 5, 2004, Unpublished
EVIDENCE THAT PARENTS USE REASONABLE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON THEIR ADOPTED CHILDREN IS AN INSUFFICIENT REASON, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO DENY THE PARENT’S PETITION TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL CHILDREN
In the Matter of Christopher Michael Eckles, Minor; Michigan Court of Appeals, # 252709, 252893; Decided September 28, 2004; Unpublished
ABSENT EVIDENCE OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN ALLEGED ABUSE OF A CHILD, A TRIAL COURT’S EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER MRE 401 AND MRE 403 CONCERNING THE ALLEGED ABUSE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
In the Matter of Taylor Voneitzen and Kelsey Voneitzen, Minors; Michigan Court of Appeals, # 247427, Decided September 28, 2004, Unpublished
UNDER THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE MANDATORY REPORTER PROVISION OF THE CHILD PROTECTION LAW, MANDATED REPORTERS ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE - WHICH INCLUDES NON ACCIDENTAL PHYSICAL OR MENTAL INJURY, SEXUAL ABUSE, SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, OR MALTREATMENT - WHEN THE SUSPECTED PERPETRATOR IS A PARENT, LEGAL GUARDIAN, TEACHER, TEACHERS’ AIDE, OR ANOTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD'S HEALTH AND WELFARETop of Page
People of the State of Michigan v Christine Beardsley, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 246202, Decided August 24, 2004
MIRANDA WARNINGS ARE ONLY REQUIRED WHEN A JUVENILE IS INTERROGATED WHILE “IN CUSTODY” AND WHETHER A STATEMENT IS INVOLUNTARY IS DETERMINED BASED ON A “TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES” BASIS
People v. Lewis, (unpublished #252464), July 27, 2004
AN FIA WORKERS’ ACTIONS IN NOT FILING FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE NOT AN ULTRA VIRES ACT AND, THUS, ARE PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
Bacarella v. Cholak-Jones, (Unpublished #248425), July 20, 2004
A STEP-PARENT DOES NOT BECOME CUSTODIAN WITHOUT ACQUIRING, UNDER CLEARLY ARTICULATED CIRCUMSTANCES, LEGAL POSSESSION OF MINOR’S PROPERTY WHICH IS THEN HELD IN TRUST FOR A CHILD, OR HAS A SPECIAL LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
In the Matter of Amanda Hudson, Minor, County of Van Buren v James Mentor, Court of Appeals #246373, Published June 24, 2004
THE ISSUE OF SERVICE IS A JURISDICTIONAL ONE AND THEREFORE THE STATUTORY PROVISION FOR SERVICE PREVAILS OVER THE COURT RULE PROVISION FOR SERVICE
In the Matter of Stephanine Zaherniak, Steven Zaherniak, and Sherry Zaherniak, Minors , Court of Appeals #252144, Published June 22, 2004
THE COURT RULES DO NOT PERMIT A BIOLOGICAL FATHER TO PARTICIPATE IN A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING WHERE A LEGAL FATHER EXISTS. WHERE A LEGAL FATHER EXISTS, A BIOLOGICAL FATHER CANNOT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED EVEN A PUTATIVE FATHER.
In re KH, KL, KL, and KJ, minors, FIA v. Jefferson, Sup. Ct. No. 122666, April 14, 2004
THE TRIAL COURT'S TERMINATION OF RESPONDENT FATHER'S PARENTAL RITHTS TO HIS SON, ANDREW WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT, HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF RESPONDENT FATHER'S PARENTAL RIGHTS TO ANDREW'S BROTHER, MATTHEW. THE COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER WHETHER TERMINATION IS CLEARLY NOT IN ANDREW'S BEST INTEREST GIVEN POSSIBLE PLACEMENT OF MATTHEW IN RESPONDENT'S HOME.
In the Matter of A.L., Minor, FIA v. Krysztopaniec, No. 247462, April 1, 2004 (Unpublished)
THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY TO PAY FOR COMPETENCY EVALUATIONS OF JUVENILE RESPONDENTS OR AUTHORITY TO JUDICIALLY ADMIT A JUVENILE FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL TO THE CARE, TREATMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITYTop of Page
In the matter of BLACKSHEAR, (Unpublished #240556) March 30, 2004
COURT HAD NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER A COMPLAINT BY A CHILD TO DIVORCE HER PARENT, WAS NOT PROVIDED THE AFFIDAVIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY MCL 722.4a(2) TO COMMENCE AN EMANCIPATION PROCEEDING AND DID NOT FOLLOW PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN ISSUING ORDERS TO REMOVE/PLACE A CHILD UNDER MCL 712A.2(b) AS A NEGLECTED OR ABUSED CHILD. ACCORDINGLY, ALL ORDERS ENTERED IN THIS CASE WERE VOID AB INITIO
Ryan v. Ryan (Published #240695) January 15, 2004
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-27-05
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161
E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014
or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov