Department of Health and Human Services v. Annette Birmingham
336553
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 30, 2017Background
- DHHS filed a 2014 child-support action against mother Annette Birmingham; a default judgment ordered Birmingham to pay support to Michael Deegan as the child’s “custodian.”
- Since 2010 Michael and his wife Mary (the Deegans) had been caring for minor child ARB under a limited power of attorney from Birmingham; they never obtained court-ordered custody or guardianship.
- In 2016 the Deegans moved to intervene in the support case under MCR 2.209, asking the court to add father David Arnold and to award the Deegans full legal and physical custody of ARB.
- Parents moved for summary disposition arguing the Deegans lacked standing to initiate custody proceedings; the Deegans conceded they lacked third‑party standing but argued the court already had custody jurisdiction via the 2014 support judgment.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(5), concluding the support case was not a pending custody dispute, the default support judgment did not award custody, and the Deegans did not meet statutory third‑party standing under MCL 722.26b or 722.26c.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding a third party cannot initiate custody proceedings without statutory standing and that MCL 722.27(1)(a) only applies when a custody dispute is already before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Deegans had standing to initiate custody proceedings | Deegans: standing not required because court had custody jurisdiction from 2014 support judgment and equity permits awarding custody in child’s best interests | Parents: Deegans lack legal capacity/standing as third parties to initiate custody; must satisfy statutory standing | Held: Deegans lacked standing; summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(5) affirmed |
| Whether the 2014 default support judgment constituted a pending custody dispute | Deegans: designation of Michael as “custodian” amounted to custody award and left custody issues before the court | Parents: default support order merely directed support to the child’s caregiver; it did not decide custody or parenting time | Held: The support judgment did not award custody; no custody dispute was pending when Deegans moved to intervene |
| Whether MCL 722.27(1)(a) allows the court to award custody to a third party absent a pending custody dispute | Deegans: statute permits awarding custody to others in child’s best interests regardless of standing | Parents: statute requires an existing custody dispute before the court may consider awarding custody to third parties | Held: MCL 722.27(1)(a) applies only when a custody dispute has been submitted to or has arisen incidentally before the court; it does not allow a third party to create jurisdiction by filing a custody claim |
| Whether Deegans fit statutory exceptions conferring third‑party standing (MCL 722.26b or 722.26c) | Deegans: argued limited power of attorney and de facto caregiving supported intervention | Parents: Deegans did not have guardianship/limited guardianship and parents were not dead or missing as required by statute | Held: Deegans did not meet either statutory standing provision; therefore they lacked capacity to sue for custody |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anjoski, 283 Mich. App. 41 (2009) (third parties generally lack standing to initiate custody disputes unless statute provides)
- Bowie v. Arder, 441 Mich. 23 (1992) (third party cannot create a custody dispute by filing a complaint asserting best interests)
- Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLC, 489 Mich. 157 (2011) (standard of review for summary disposition is de novo)
- Heltzel v. Heltzel, 248 Mich. App. 1 (2001) (third parties may be awarded custody incident to an existing family-law proceeding)
- Terry v. Affum, 237 Mich. App. 522 (1999) (MCL 722.27 requires a custody dispute properly before the court before third parties may be considered)