in Re Caw, Edgw Minors, 333682

Petitioners are the maternal grandmother and step‑grandfather who sought MCI superintendent’s consent to adopt two minors after the children were removed from their mother for abuse and parental rights were terminated.
In an earlier proceeding petitioners were denied placement partly because GP had a prior CPS history and a 2003 conviction for fourth‑degree child abuse against the children’s mother; therapists recommended limiting contact with relatives due to trauma.
The MCI superintendent investigated and withheld consent to adopt, citing the children’s attachment to stable foster parents, risk of traumatic disruption, LP’s equivocal statements about AW’s wrongdoing, and GP’s past abuse/temper concerns.
Petitioners filed a MCL 710.45 motion in circuit court alleging the superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious; the court denied the motion and dismissed the adoption petition.
Petitioners appealed, raising (1) alleged judicial bias/misapplication of law, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) claims that the superintendent, GAL, and foster parents engaged in unethical or fabricated conduct.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether superintendent’s withholding of consent was arbitrary and capricious	Superintendent acted without proper consideration; evidence favored petitioners	Superintendent gave reasoned, evidence‑based reasons (stability for children, therapist reports, safety concerns)	Denial was not arbitrary or capricious; court limited to that narrow review and affirmed
Whether circuit judge was biased or misapplied law	Judge displayed bias, hostility to adoption cases, and misinterpreted legislature	Judge correctly recited and applied MCL 710.45 standard and showed no disqualifying bias	No judicial bias or misconduct; comments reflected difficulty of such cases, not partiality
Whether petitioners are entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel made errors warranting a new trial	Grandparents lack a constitutional liberty interest like parents; ineffective‑assistance framework not applicable	No relief; ineffective assistance doctrine does not apply to grandparents in adoption context
Whether allegations that superintendent/GAL/foster parents fabricated evidence or acted unethically require relief	Accused officials fabricated or misstated evidence and acted improperly	Allegations irrelevant or unsupported; superintendent explained sources and rationale; GAL/foster parent accusations not material to arbitrary/capricious inquiry	Accusations lack merit or relevance; do not show arbitrary or capricious decision

Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich 651 (state‑actor decisionmaking not arbitrary or capricious standard context)
In re ASF, 311 Mich App 420 (narrow MCL 710.45 review; existence of good reasons on both sides forecloses arbitrary/capricious finding)
In re Cotton, 208 Mich App 180 (same arbitrary/capricious principle cited)
In re Keast, 278 Mich App 415 (standard of review for superintendent’s withholding under MCL 710.45)
People v. Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 (procedural requirements for preserving judicial disqualification claims)
In re MKK, 286 Mich App 546 (judge’s critical remarks do not ordinarily establish disqualifying bias)
Brinkley v. Brinkley, 277 Mich App 23 (grandparents do not have a fundamental constitutional right to custody/relationship)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 (distinction of interests relevant to ineffective assistance analogy in criminal context)
Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich 573 (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims as a question of law)