In re Bibi Guardianship
315 Mich. App. 323
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two grandmothers (Nadima Bibi and Lorraine Wallace) contested guardianship of minor wards after a Canadian child-protection consent judgment placed the children temporarily with Wallace and the maternal aunt under Ontario Children’s Aid supervision for six months.
- After the consent judgment, the wards’ father died and their mother was incarcerated; the children later relocated to Michigan with parties residing in Michigan.
- Bibi petitioned the Michigan probate court to be appointed full guardian; Wallace filed a competing guardianship petition.
- The probate court held Bibi’s petitions barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata based on the Canadian consent judgment and awarded guardianship to Wallace; the Michigan circuit court affirmed.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (this opinion) reviewed de novo the application of preclusion doctrines and choice-of-law issues, and found errors in applying Canadian preclusion principles and in treating the consent judgment as preclusive.
- The Court reversed and remanded for the probate court to decide the petitions on the merits (no retention of jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bibi) | Defendant's Argument (Wallace) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law for preclusion | Michigan law should govern whether the Canadian consent judgment has preclusive effect | Canadian law should control because judgment arose in Ontario | Court applied Michigan law (foreign preclusion unsettled) and analyzed under Michigan preclusion doctrines |
| Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) | Consent judgment did not actually litigate or decide issues; cannot bar relitigation in Michigan probate | Prior judgment should bar relitigation of custody/placement issues | Collateral estoppel did not apply; consent judgment was not a trial/adjudication of those issues |
| Res judicata (claim preclusion) | Consent judgment was temporary, not a final "last word"; changed facts/law occurred after judgment | Consent judgment should preclude subsequent guardianship claims between same parties | Res judicata did not apply: consent judgment was interlocutory/temporary and intervening changes of fact/law defeat preclusion |
| UCCJEA / Child Custody Act (proper-cause/change standard) | Circuit-court custody standards (MCL 722.27(1)(c)) do not govern probate guardianship proceedings | Bibi failed to show proper cause/change to reopen prior custody determination | Child Custody Act proper-cause/change standard does not apply to probate guardianship orders; circuit court erred to rely on it |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaeb v Kaeb, 309 Mich App 556 (de novo review of statute interpretation and application of law)
- Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573 (de novo review of preclusion doctrine application)
- Jones v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 202 Mich App 393 (choice-of-law exception where foreign law not settled)
- Fisher v Belcher, 269 Mich App 247 (UCCJEA: confer with home-state court before exercising jurisdiction)
- Ditmore v Michalik, 244 Mich App 569 (consent judgments and res judicata discussion)
- Kosiel v Arrow Liquors Corp, 446 Mich 374 (res judicata.requires a final, ‘‘last word’’ judgment)
- Bryan v JPMorgan Chase Bank, 304 Mich App 708 (purposes of res judicata)