In re Harper
302 Mich. App. 349
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In Sept. 2010 a 17‑year‑old mother’s infant was hospitalized for failure to thrive; DHS took custody, placed both in foster care, and entered the mother’s name on the statewide central registry for child protective matters.
- The mother improved her circumstances; at a Sept. 23, 2011 permanency hearing the trial court terminated jurisdiction and ordered DHS to remove her name from the central registry to allow her to pursue nursing employment.
- DHS moved to set aside that order, arguing MCL 722.627 vests exclusive authority over maintenance and expunction of the central registry in the department and provides an administrative removal process the mother did not complete.
- The trial court denied DHS’s request; DHS appealed by leave. The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation and jurisdiction de novo.
- The mother had initiated but then canceled the administrative hearing provided under MCL 722.627 and did not exhaust administrative remedies; no due‑process claim was properly preserved below.
- The Court concluded MCL 722.627 creates a comprehensive, exclusive administrative scheme for registry expunction and that MCL 712A.6 (court authority over adults incidental to juvenile jurisdiction) did not authorize the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother / GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to order removal from the central registry | MCL 722.627 vests exclusive authority and procedures for expunction in DHS; courts lack jurisdiction until administrative remedies exhausted | Trial court relied on MCL 712A.6 (and GAL authority) to protect the child’s interests and ordered removal | Held: DHS has exclusive authority under MCL 722.627; trial court lacked jurisdiction to order removal |
| Whether the mother was excused from exhausting administrative remedies | Administrative scheme must be exhausted; mother had not completed administrative hearing | Mother argued DHS delay justified bypassing administrative remedies | Held: Delay argument not properly supported in the record; exhaustion required and not excused |
| Whether MCL 712A.6 authorized the court’s order affecting an adult | DHS: MCL 722.627 is the specific statute and controls; court’s power under MCL 712A.6 is limited and incidental | Mother/GAL: Court may issue orders affecting adults necessary for child’s well‑being (including aiding employment prospects) | Held: MCL 712A.6 does not override the specific administrative scheme; removal not shown necessary to child’s welfare |
| Whether GAL’s motion circumvented MCL 722.627 | DHS: Statute limits who may request expunction and vests DHS with authority; GAL cannot displace those procedures | GAL: MCL 712A.17(d) empowers GAL to pursue issues on child’s behalf, justifying the motion | Held: MCL 722.627 controls; GAL’s participation did not substitute for administrative process |
Key Cases Cited
- L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v. Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354 (interpreting de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
- Papas v. Gaming Control Bd, 257 Mich App 647 (agency jurisdiction can be exclusive — courts must decline until administrative remedies exhausted)
- In re Macomber, 436 Mich 386 (scope and limits of court authority under MCL 712A.6 over adults incidental to juvenile jurisdiction)
- Slater v. Ann Arbor Pub Sch Bd of Ed, 250 Mich App 419 (specific statute controls over general statute)
- Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v. Attorney General, 243 Mich App 43 (policy reasons supporting exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Sherman v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 251 Mich App 41 (appellate review limited to record below)