In re COH
495 Mich. 184
| Mich. | 2014Background
- This case analyzes whether MCL 722.954a's relative-placement preference applies to guardianship decisions under MCL 712A.19c(2).
- DHS removed the children from parental care in Feb 2008; Scribner, the paternal grandmother, sought guardianship in 2010.
- A guardianship hearing in Aug 2010 denied Scribner’s petition; the trial court used the Child Custody Act best-interest factors.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a relative-preference existed under MCL 722.954a and applied to MCL 712A.19c(2).
- The Supreme Court held that the relative-preference in MCL 722.954a applies only at initial placement after removal, not to post-termination guardianship decisions; MCL 712A.19c(2) governs guardianship after termination.
- The Court remanded to address Scribner’s appeal of the MCI superintendent’s denial of consent to adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 722.954a applies to guardianship under MCL 712A.19c(2) | Scribner argues a relative preference applies to guardianship. | DHS argues the preference governs initial placement only. | No; relative preference does not apply to guardianship under 712A.19c(2). |
| What standards/factors govern the 712A.19c(2) best-interest determination | Court should apply Adoption Code factors. | Court may apply Child Custody Act factors or other relevant factors. | Court may use the Child Custody Act, Adoption Code, or other factors; discretion to determine best interests is broad. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying the Child Custody Act factors | Adoption Code factors should be used. | Child Custody Act factors are appropriate for a two-placement comparison. | No abuse of discretion; comparison of two placement options was appropriate to determine best interests. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding for adoption-consent issues | Remand unnecessary if guardianship upheld. | Remand is needed to address consent to adopt by MCI. | The Court of Appeals is to remand to address the adoption-consent issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rood, 483 Mich 73 (2009) (outlines juvenile-court goals and placement considerations)
- In re Brock, 442 Mich 101 (1993) (distinguishes adjudicative vs. dispositional phases)
- In re Mason, 486 Mich 142 (2010) (discusses dispositional best interests and termination context)
- Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230 (1999) (statutory interpretation and intent guiding construction)
- Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (2013) (treats broad statutory language as permitting court discretion)
- In re BKD, 246 Mich App 212 (2001) (applies clear-error standard to best-interest findings)
- Easton School Dist No 4 v Snell, 24 Mich 350 (1872) (illustrates deference to discretionary decisions under general grant of power)
- In re Barlow, 404 Mich 216 (1978) (permits using guidance from related factors in termination/adoption contexts)