Juvenile Review Menu
A COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT A RESPONDENT FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BASED ON A CALCULATION THAT IMPUTES INCOME FROM SOURCES UNAVAILABLE TO THE RESPONDENT
In the matter of Makyla Willians, Minor, ___Mich App___ (2009), #289260, 11/24/09
A COURT CANNOT TERMINATE A PARENT’S RIGHTS TO HIS/HER CHILD WITHOUT FIRST FINDING JURISDICTION EXISTS OVER THE CHILD UNDER MCL 712.2(b)(1) or 2(b)(2). A PARENT’S CRIMINAL STATUS ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER MCL 712A.2(b) AND ACCORDINGLY THE TERMINATION OF THE FATHER’S RIGHTS ON A FAULTY FINDING OF JURISDICTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
DHS v. Johnson, (Unpublished, #292545), 11/17/09
A COURT MAY NOT PROHIBIT A RESPONDENT FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL BASED ON A CALCULATION THAT IMPUTES INCOME FROM SOURCES UNAVAILABLE TO THE RESPONDENTTop of Page
In the matter of Makyla Williams, Minor, (Unpublished, #289260), 9/29/09
ONCE A STATUTORY BASIS FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IS ESTABLISHED, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE ADVANTAGES OF A FOSTER HOME IN MAKING “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” DETERMINATION REQUIRED TO ENTER AN ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS
DHS v. Foster & Szumanski, ___Mich App___ (2009), #289345, 9/24/09
JUVENILE COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS CLAIMS OF PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BROUGHT AFTER THE PETITIONING JUVENILE HAS REACHED AN AGE BEYOND WHICH THE COURT WOULD NORMALLY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER HIM
People v. Scherman, (Unpublished, #289732), 9/15/09PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED WHEN A NON RESPONDENT PARENT IS NOT OFFERED SERVICES TO ADDRESS IDENTIFIED ISSUES OF NEGLECT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TERMINATE HIS/HER PARENTAL RIGHTS
DHS v. Roberson, (Unpublished, # 289919), 9/15/09
A PUTATIVE FATHER IS NOT A RESPONDENT AND, THEREFORE IS NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE ESTABLISHES PATERNITY OF HIS CHILD WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING
In re Kameron Cooper, (Unpublished, #291713), 9/1/09
ONCE A JUVENILE COURT ASSUMES JURISDICTION OVER A CHILD AND THE CHILD BECOMES A WARD OF THE COURT UNDER THE JUVENILE CODE, THOSE JUVENILE COURT ORDERS SUPERSEDE ALL OTHER COURT ORDERS, INCLUDING CUSTODY ORDERS MADE BY ANOTHER COURT, EVEN IF INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE JUVENILE COURT DISMISSES ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHILD ALL THOSE PREVIOUS CUSTODY ORDERS CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTTop of Page
In re Gunther, (Unpublished, #290260), 9/1/09
(1) THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY HAD JURISDICTION OVER APPEALLANT AND HIS MINOR CHILD WHEN A NON-ATTORNEY REFERREE CONDUCTED THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND ORDERED THE ADJOURNMENT. (2) THE REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENTER AN ORDER FOR ADJOURNEMENT BUT REVERSAL WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE ORDER DID NOT CONTAIN A SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL DECISION OR AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT.Top of Page
In re Megan Pobanz, (Unpublished, #290467), 8/11/09A TRIAL COURT MUST MAKE A SPECIFIC FACTUAL FINDING TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT BEFORE AWARDING CUSTODY TO A NON-CUSTODIAL FATHER, WHO HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY CARING FOR MINOR CHILD AS A RESULT OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING
In the matter of Devante Britton, Minor, (Unpublished, #288397), 7/23/09
NO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION WAS SHOWN WHERE RESPONDENT FATHER WAS INCARCERATED IN CALIFORNIA THROUGHOUT THE PENDENCY OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING, HAD NOTICE OF THE TRIAL AND TERMINATION HEARING, WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL (WHO ADVOCATED PURSUANT TO RESPONDENT’S WISHES) AND NEVER REQUESTED TO BE PRESENT OR PARTICIPATE BY TELEPHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS PRIOR TO APPEAL
In re: Tyreana Ronashia Clark, (Unpublished, #289231), 7/21/09
(1) WHERE THE DELAY IN COMMENCING TRIAL IS NOT SHOWN TO AFFECT A PARENT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OR AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS HEARING, IT IS NOT A BASIS FOR REVERSIBLE ERROR (2) SERVICES NEED NOT BE PROVIDED TO A FATHER IF REUNIFICATION WAS NOT THE GOAL OF THE CASE AT THE TIME THE PUTATIVE FATHER BECAME THE CHILDREN’S LEGAL FATHER
DHS v. Smith & Cagle, (Unpublished, #288525), 7/21/09
A RESPONDENT CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF A COGNATE LESSER OFFENSE WHICH CONTAINS ELEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT IN COMMON WITH THE HIGHER CHARGED OFFENSE WITHOUT VIOLATING RESPONDENT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
People v. Rashid Abdullah, (Unpublished, #284905), 7/21/09
AFTER JULY 11, 2008 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS MAY ONLY OCCUR IF THE COURT FINDS A STATUTORY BASIS FOR TERMINATION AND THAT THE TERMINATION IS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST
In re: Genevieve Brookelyn Hansen, ___Mich App___ (2009), #289903, 7/21/09
THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES (DHS) TO UNDERTAKE A THOROUGH, CONTEMPORANEOUS ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE PARENT IN THE PAST AND THE PARENT’S RESPONSE TO THOSE SERVICES BEFORE SEEKING TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS WITHOUT HAVING OFFERED ADDITIONAL SERVICES. ICWA DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY REQUIRE THE DHS TO PROVIDE SERVICES EACH TIME A NEW TERMINATION PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED AGAINST A PARENTTop of Page
DHS v. Lee & Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, ___Mich___ (2009), #137653, 7/14/09
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROVIDE MOTHER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED AND TERMINATED HER RIGHTS TO THE MINOR CHILD BASED ON HER ASSOCIATION WITH THE FATHER, NOT ON AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF HER OWN ABILITIES. “ANTICIPATORY NEGLECT” IS ONLY PROBATIVE OF HOW ONE PARENT MAY TREAT ANOTHER CHILD AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE SOLE GROUNDS OF TERMINATION WITHOUT A CONCURRENT DEMONSTRATION OF PARENTAL UNFITNESS
In the matter of Adam Spencer Miteff, Minor, (Unpublished, #288265), 6/16/09
THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MISAPPLIED THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD AND SUBSTITUTED THEIR OWN JUDGMENT IN REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT’S TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
In re Dylan Tyler Hall, Brandt Nicole Hall and Felicity Jasmine Filbrandt, Minors, ___ Mich ___(2009), #138312, 6/3/09
(1) THE PURPOSE OF THE “IMMEDIACY REQUIREMENT” OF MCL 803.306a IS TO PREVENT HARM TO THE PUBLIC, AND THUS, THE PLAINTIFF WAS WITHIN THE CLASS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE, AND THEREFORE, WHETHER A REPORT ALLEGEDLY MADE 100 MINUTES AFTER A JUVENILE ESCAPES A FACILITY IS NEGLIGENT IS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY. (2) BROAD, ALL-INCLUSIVE INDEMNITY CLAUSES DO NOT PROTECT THE INDEMNITEE AGAINST IT'S OWN NEGLIGENCE ABSENT A SHOWING OF THE INTENTION TO DO SO.
The Estate of Dominique Wade v. Starr Commonwealth v. Bridgeway Services, L.L.C., (Unpublished, #277469), 5/28/09
PUBLICATION TO SECURE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A RESPONDENT FATHER IN A CHILD PROTECTION CASE IS PROPER GIVEN PERSONAL SERVICE AT THE FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS ATTEMPTED (AFTER THE PUBLICATION) BUT FOUND IMPRACTICABLE EVEN THOUGH NO MAIL SERVICE WAS ATTEMPTED AT THAT ADDRESS, NO FURTHER EFFORTS WERE MADE TO SECURE THE FATHER’S WHEREABOUTS AND NO MAIL SERVICE WAS MADE TO FATHER’S MOTHER’S ADDRESS
DHS v. Ward, (Unpublished, #288127), 5/12/09
A TRIAL COURT PRESIDING OVER A CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDING UNDER THE JUVENILE CODE ALSO HAS JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS A RELATED MOTION BROUGHT UNDER THE MICHIGAN CHILD CUSTODY ACT SO LONG AS THE COURT MAKES CLEAR THAT IT IS EXERCISING IT'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE MICHIGAN CHILD CUSTODY ACT AND, THEREAFTER, ABIDES BY THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT
Department of Human Services v. Johnson, ___Mich App___(2009), #286431, 5/5/09
PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ADJUDICATION WERE NOT RECTIFIED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE WHEN DHS AND THE TRIAL COURT DISCOURAGED THE FATHER FROM RECTIFYING THOSE CONDITIONS BY NOT ALLOWING HIM TO MOVE OUT OF THE STATETop of Page
Madison Kabat, Minors, ___Mich App___(2009), #286481, 4/7/09
A PARENT IS ENTITLED TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IF THE STATE SEEKS TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS. THIS INCLUDES REASONABLE EFFORTS TO NOTIFY THE PARENT OF PROCEEDINGS; AS WELL AS A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. WHETHER A PARTICULAR PARENT WAS AFFORDED MINIMAL DUE PROCESS IS EVALUATED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. UNLESS THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT IS STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED FROM BECOMING A MINOR’S CUSTODIAN, THE STATE MUST NOTIFY THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OF HIS RIGHT AS A POTENTIAL PLACEMENT AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE SERVICES
In re Rood, Minor, ___ Mich ___, (2009), #136849, 4/2/09
TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A LOWER COURT’S RECORD OF RESPONDENT FATHER’S MURDER CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS APPROPRIATE ON APPEAL GIVEN MICHIGAN’S SYSTEM OF ONE COURT OF JUSTICE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN INSUFFICIENT RECORD ESTABLISHED AT THE TRIAL COURT LEVEL TO SUPPORT A STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE TERMINATION OF RESPONDENT FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
In re Martin & Ramsey, (Unpublished, #286425), 3/24/09
IF A TRIAL COURT HAS REASON TO BELIEVE A PARENT SUFFERS FROM A DISABILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), IT CANNOT TERMINATE THAT PARENT’S RIGHTS TO A CHILD WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING IF THE PARENT DOES SUFFER FROM SUCH A DISABILITY AND, THEREAFTER, PROVIDING HER SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADA’S REQUIREMENTS
In re Greene, (Unpublished, #286252-54), 3/24/09
A DEFENSE OF BATTERED WOMAN’S SYNDROME IS INADEQUATE TO OVERCOME CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A STATUTORY BASIS TO TERMINATE A RESPONDENT MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
In re Humphrey, (Unpublished, #287759), 3/17/09
MOTHER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR INJURIES FOUND ON AN INFANT DOES NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS
In the matter of Jayden Bridges and Matthew Perry, Minors, (Unpublished, #286428), 2/24/09
ALLOWABLE HEARSAY IN CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO MCR 3.972(C)(2) IS LIMITED TO STATEMENTS DESCRIBING ACTS OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT “PERFORMED WITH OR ON THE CHILD BY ANOTHER PERSON.” LEGITIMATE CONCERNS REGARDING AN INDIVIDUAL’S ABILITY TO PARENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CHILDREN WILL SUFFER HARM OR ABUSE IF RETURNED TO THAT PERSON’S CARETop of Page
In the matter of Dylan Tyler Hall, Brandi Nicole Hall, and Felicity Jasmine Filbrandt, Minors, (Unpublished, #285683), 1/29/09
IN ORDER TO REMOVE A CASE FROM THE FORMAL CALENDAR OF THE JUVENILE COURT TO THE COURT’S CONSENT CALENDAR THERE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT INCLUDING NOTICE TO THE PROSECUTOR OF THE COURT’S INTENT TO HANDLE THE CASE (INVOLVING A FELONY CHARGE OR ONE PUNISHABLE BY INCARCERATION OF ONE YEAR OR MORE) INFORMALLY ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VICTIM AND THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THAT DECISIONPeople v. Lee; Family Independence Agency v. Ivos, ___Mich App___ (2009), #282848, #283562, 1/15/09
PURSUANT TO MCR 3.977(2), A TRIAL COURT MAY NOT FILE THEIR OWN PETITION. THE TRIAL COURT MAY AMEND A PETITION ON IT'S OWN INITIATIVE, HOWEVER, IF THE AMENDMENTS AMOUNT TO A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DO SO
Department of Human Services v. Daniel Hallman, (Unpublished, #285202), 12/9/08
THE TRIAL COURT MUST HAVE EVIDENCE OF PAST PHYSICAL ABUSE IN ORDER TO RELY UPON THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY ABUSE
In the Matter of Calvin Markus Gerwatowski, (Unpublished, #283283), 12/2/08
UNDER MCL 710.51(6)(a) and (b), IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ALLEGE THAT A PARENT WAS REFUSED CONTACT WITH THEIR CHILD WHEN THAT PARENT HAS PARENTAL RIGHTS THAT MAY BE ENFORCED THROUGH A COURT OF LAW
In the Matter of Madison Rhea Syndic; In the Matter of Desiree Lynn Whitely, (Unpublished, #2285994 and # 285747), 11/25/08
MICHIGAN COURT RULES ONLY REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO INQUIRE OF THE MOTHER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND WHEREABOUTS OF A FATHER DURING PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, AND AT FURTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS, IF THE MINOR HAS NO FATHER AS DEFINED BY MCR 3.903(A)(7), THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING
In the Matter of Samauri St. Miracle Spencer, (Unpublished, #284632), 11/20/08
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page
Last updated 1-25-10
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