Juvenile Review Menu
MCR 3.920(B)(2)(B) and (4)(a) REQUIRES PERSONAL SERVICE UPON A PARENT WHOSE PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TERMINATED. WHILE MCR 3.920(B)(4)(b) PERMITS SUBSTITUTED SERVICE IN CASES IN WHICH PERSONAL SERVICE IS IMPRACTICAL, BEFORE PUBLICATION CAN OCCUR THE COURT MUST FIND ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY OR A MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT THAT PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS IS IMPRACTICAL OR CANNOT BE ACHIEVED
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES V HOLLY, (#261903 Unpublished) Michigan Court of Appeals, October 20, 2005
THE STATE IS NOT VIOLATING THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE AND IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN ENDING FUNDING TO A FAITH BASED PROGRAM FOR MINOR WARDS OF THE STATE WHICH ADVANCES OR INHIBITS RELIGION IF THERE IS NOT A TRUE PERSONAL CHOICE OF PROGRAM FOR THE MINOR. A PROGRAM’S PROCEDURE OF ALLOWING A MINOR TO OPT OUT OF THE PROGRAM OR TREATMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ASSURE TRUE PERSONAL CHOICE AND PROTECT AGAINST EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENT
Teen Ranch, et al., V Marianne Udow, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division, September 29, 2005
WHETHER A JUVENILE’S INCRIMINATING STATEMENT IS ABLE TO BE SUPPRESSED AS INVOLUNTARILY MADE DEPENDS ON THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING WHETHER HE IS IN CUSTODY OR DEPRIVED OF HIS FREEDOM IN A SIGNIFICANT WAYTop of Page
People v. Francillon, (Unpublished #255737), October 25, 2005
UNDER MCL 712A.19b(5), IF THE COURT FINDS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ORDER TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND ORDER THAT ADDITIONAL EFFORTS FOR REUNIFICATION OF THE CHILD WITH THE PARENT NOT BE MADE, UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IS CLEARLY NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. IN FINDING GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, THE USE OF THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY NEGLECT IS PROPER
FIA V. Smedberg, (#260750, Unpublished), Michigan Court of Appeals, August 2, 2005
A WITNESS MAY NOT BE IMPEACHED BY A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IF THE STATEMENT USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES GOES TO A CENTRAL ISSUE IN THE CASE AND IF THERE IS NO OTHER TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESS IN THE CASE FOR WHICH HIS CREDIBILITY IS RELEVANTTop of Page
In re Davis Minor, (Unpublished #254527), July 14, 2005
WHEN A JUVENILE VIOLATES PROBATION, THE FAMILY DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION IN ORDERING A DISPOSITION IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE JUVENILE’S BEST
People of the State of Michigan v. S. E., Michigan Court of Appeals, # 252843, 6-28-05, Unpublished
UNDER THE JUVENILE CODE, A COURT MAY ORDER PARENTS TO PAY RESTITUTION TO AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR COMPENSATION PAID TO AN INSURED SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER A LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY
People of the State of Michigan and Set-Seg v. Sean McEvoy, James McEvoy, and Maria McEvoy, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 254116, 6-21-05, Published
A PUTATIVE FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A STATE PAID PATERNITY TEST
In the Matter of Mi'Angel Courtney Maria Allen, Minor, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 259948, 6-16-05, Unpublished
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN DECIDING WHETHER THE NOTICE SENT TO THE MICHIGAN INDIAN CHILD WELFARE AGENCY SATISFIED THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT’S REQUIREMENTS
Family Independence Agency v. Katherine Ollie, Richard Ollie and Shane Harris; Family Independence Agency v. Richard Ollie, Katherine Ollie and Shane Harris, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 254909; #255181; #2357565, 6-14-05, Unpublished
A MOTHER’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DEVELOP A BOND WITH HER CHILD WAS NOT VIOLATED WHEN A COURT PROPERLY TERMINATED HER PARENTAL RIGHTSTop of page
In the Matter of Emily Burrell, Minor, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 259808, 6-2-05, Unpublished.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) PROTECTIONS ARE IMPLICATED ONLY AFTER A TRIBE DETERMINES THE CHILD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR RECOGNIZES THE TRIBE AS AN “INDIAN TRIBE” AS DEFINED BY THE ICWA
FIA v. FRIED (Published #258432), May 24, 2005
MERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PARENT/AGENCY AGREEMENT WITHOUT BENEFIT FROM THOSE SERVICES IS INSUFFICIENT TO AVERT TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
FIA v. JANKOWSKI (Unpublished #258466), May 19, 2005
CONFESSIONS SECURED IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT OR INADMISSIBLE IN A SUBSEQUENT RELATED CHILD PROTECTION CASE
FIA v. Harrington (Unpublished #259118), May 17, 2005
A COURT IN REVIEWING A REFEREE’S RECOMMENDED ORDER NEED NOT REVIEW THE ENTIRE CASE HISTORY
FIA v. Thomas (Unpublished #258144), April 28, 2005
UNDER MCL 710.51(6), IF THE PARENTS OF A CHILD ARE DIVORCED AND THE PARENT WITH LEGAL CUSTODY SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIES AND THAT PARENT’S SPOUSE PETITIONS TO ADOPT THE CHILD, THE COURT, UPON NOTICE AND HEARING, MAY TERMINATE THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THE OTHER PARENT IF IT FINDS THAT THE PARENT FAILED TO PROVIDE SUPPORT AND FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH THE CHILD FOR TWO YEARS OR MORE BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION
Carolyn Vera Drake and Kevin Wilson Drake v. Thomas Reminga, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 258011, Decided April 7, 2005; Unpublished
STATEMENTS OF MINORS ADMITTED UNDER MCR 3.972 MUST BE GIVEN THROUGH TESTIMONY OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE STATEMENT WAS MADE AND WITH SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF TRUSTWORTHINESS BEING DEMONSTRATED ON THE RECORD
FIA v. Gladden (Unpublished #256716), March 24, 2005
JURISDICTION IN CHILD NEGLECT CASES CANNOT BE PREMISED ON THE PUTATIVE FATHER’S FAILURE TO ACT TO SUPPORT OR PROVIDE A HOME FOR A MINOR CHILD. IT IS THE ACTION OR INACTION OF A PARENT (LEGAL FATHER OR MOTHER) THAT GIVES THE COURT JURISDICTION OVER THE CHILD. ONCE SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS, HOWEVER, THE COURT MAY ENTER ORDERS DIRECTED TO ADULTS (INCLUDING PUTATIVE OR LEGAL FATHERS) NECESSARY TO ENHANCE THE WELL-BEING OF THE NEGLECTED MINOR
In the matter of: Trinity Miller (Unpublished #257090), March 22, 2005
COUNTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER HALF OF THEIR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR JUVENILE FACILITIES SINCE THOSE COSTS ARE NOT REIMBURSABLE EITHER UNDER HEADLEE OR THROUGH THE CHILD CARE FUND
Ottawa County, et al v. FIA (Published #251365), March 22, 2005
THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE TO A RESPONDENT IN A PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING CONSTITUTES A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND MAKES ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY DIVISION VOID WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENT BEING DENIED NOTICE. BEFORE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, THE TRIAL COURT MUST FIND THAT PERSONAL SERVICE IS IMPRACTICABLE
Family Independence Agency v. Bascum Tilmun Barnett III, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 254971, February 17, 2005; Unpublished
CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ONE CONTINUOUS PROCEEDING, AND THE TRIAL COURT IS EXPECTED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTS, INCLUDING EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY ELICITED DURING PRIOR HEARINGS, EVEN IF AN ORDER RESULTING FROM THE PRIOR PROCEEDING IS BEING APPEALED
Family Independency Agency v Tony D. Streets and Annette Streets; Family Independence Agency v. Annette Jones Streets and Tony Streets, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 255761; 256816, February 15, 2005; Unpublished
UNDER THE COURT RULES, A TRIAL COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS PETITIONS IN CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS AT ALL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PROSECUTOR. ALTHOUGH MCL 712A.11(6) PROVIDES THAT A PETITION IN A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING MAY BE AMENDED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, A TRIAL COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO AMEND THE PETITION IF IT DOES NOT FIND THE “ENDS OF JUSTICE” REQUIRE THE AMENDMENTTop of Page
In the Matter of Zitivon Hughes, Zimorien Hughes, Zaccheus Grant, and Zsilas Hughes, minors, Michigan Court of Appeals, # 256708, February 15, 2005; Unpublished
A CONTINGENT RELEASE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PREMISED ON A THERAPIST’S SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION THAT A CHILD’S MOTHER DID NOT HAVE THE SKILLS OR CAPACITY TO SAFELY PARENT AND NURTURE HER CHILD IS INEFFECTIVE TO TERMINATE THE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
FIA v. McCloskey, (Unpublished #256679) January 25, 2005
A PUTATIVE FATHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF THE HEARING ON A PENDING LIMITED GUARDIANSHIP PETITION AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE GUARDIAN APPOINTED AT THAT HEARING HAS AUTHORITY TO BRING A PETITION SEEKING JURISDICTION AND TERMINATION OF THE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS IN A CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING
Anderson v. Bainbridge, (Unpublished #256333) January 25, 2005
THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF THE FATHER’S REQUEST TO ADJOURN THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING UNTIL THE FATHER’S CRIMINAL CASE (ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS) IS CONCLUDED WAS NOT ERROR
FIA v. Horace, (Unpublished # 256460) January 20, 2005
A TRIAL COURT MUST CONSIDER THE ABILITY OF A NON CUSTODIAL INDIGENT INCARCERATED PARENT TO PROPERLY PRESENT A DEFENSE TO A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARING UNDER THE ADOPTION CODE BEFORE DENYING THAT PARENT APPOINTED COUNSEL
Russella v. Breda, (Unpublished #251731) January 11, 2005
CONDITIONAL ADRIANSON TERMINATION ORDERS VIOLATE CURRENT LAW WHICH MANDATES TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IF A STATUTORY BASIS FOR TERMINATION IS PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AND NO CONTRARY BEST INTEREST EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED
FIA v. Gazella, (Published #253008) January 4, 2005
A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF MCL 712A.19(b)(3)(g) REQUIRES FINDINGS BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT TRIAL WHEN THE COURT ORDERS TERMINATION, RATHER THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS FILED
In the matter of Megan Lee Smith, minor, Michhigan Court of Appeals, # 254462, Decided December 16, 2004; Unpublished
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-7-06
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