In re ASF
311 Mich. App. 420
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- ASF (state ward) and sibling SF were placed with grandparents Samuel and Janet Spann; parental rights later terminated. Petitioners became licensed foster parents and cared for ASF for ~3½ years.
- After termination, petitioners sought to adopt ASF but Samuel initially recommended his son Damon and daughter-in-law Julie as alternative adoptive parents, then later sought adoption himself; agency treated matter as competing-party adoption.
- Bethany Christian Services and adoption worker recommended denying petitioners’ consent and favoring Damon/Julie; MCI superintendent withheld consent based on multiple factors (petitioners’ ages/health, Samuel’s vacillation, suitability of Damon/Julie, sibling continuity, and grandparents’ continued role).
- Petitioners filed a motion under MCL 710.45 alleging the superintendent’s denial was arbitrary and capricious; at the §45 hearing petitioners presented evidence, LGAL participated and later called a witness but court granted MCI’s involuntary dismissal motion at close of petitioners’ case.
- Trial court held petitioners failed to meet the clear-and-convincing burden required to show the superintendent acted arbitrarily and capriciously; appeal and cross‑appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was grant of MCI’s motion for involuntary dismissal premature under MCR 2.504(B)(2)? | Petitioners/LGAL: dismissal was premature because LGAL was not allowed to complete presentation and courts should permit full evidence. | MCI: motion properly granted after plaintiffs (petitioners) rested; LGAL was not the petitioner and had no right to present a separate case. | Court: Dismissal proper at close of petitioners’ case; LGAL not a petitioner; no prejudice shown. |
| Did petitioners prove superintendent’s denial was arbitrary and capricious under MCL 710.45 (clear-and-convincing standard)? | Petitioners/LGAL: superintendent failed to consider ASF’s individual circumstances and attachment; decision effectively age-based discrimination and lacked good reasons. | MCI: superintendent considered multiple legitimate factors; denial rested on reasons supported by evidence (ages/health, Samuel’s vacillation, alternate placement). | Court: Petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that denial was arbitrary and capricious; trial court’s finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Did consideration of petitioners’ ages violate MCL 722.957(1) or the Michigan Civil Rights Act? | Petitioners: consideration of age amounted to unlawful discrimination and sole basis for denial. | MCI: age was one factor among many relevant to long-term planning; decision not based solely on age. | Court: No violation—age was not the sole reason; consideration of age relevant to child’s best interests. |
| Did denying LGAL further opportunity to present evidence violate ASF’s due process/equal protection? | LGAL: restriction deprived ASF of due process and equal protection; she should have presented attachment/expert evidence. | MCI: LGAL already participated; petitioners bore burden; LGAL not entitled to present separate case; no prejudice shown and no similarly situated group identified. | Court: Argument insufficiently briefed and effectively abandoned; no due process/equal protection violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Waterworks, Inc v Int’l Fidelity & Surety, Ltd, 275 Mich App 256 (standard of review for questions of law)
- Rodenhiser v Duenas, 296 Mich App 268 (review for clear error on involuntary dismissal)
- In re Keast, 278 Mich App 415 (standard for §45 review—whether superintendent acted arbitrarily and capriciously)
- In re Martin, 450 Mich 204 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Cotton, 208 Mich App 180 (focus on absence of good reason to withhold consent)
- Marderosian v Stroh Brewery Co, 123 Mich App 719 (trial judge’s role on involuntary dismissal)
- Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd, 209 Mich App 165 (adequacy of brief findings under court rules)
- Samuel D Begola Servs, Inc v Wild Bros, 210 Mich App 636 (MCR 2.504(B)(2) framework)
- In re CW, 488 Mich 935 (consideration of child’s individual circumstances)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1 (substantial justice and harmless-error principles)
- Yee v Shiawassee Co Bd of Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379 (abandonment for cursory briefing)
- Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp, 486 Mich 311 (equal protection pleading requirement)
- In re Toth, 227 Mich App 548 (LGAL status/participation limits)