in Re Lfoc Minor
334870
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 4, 2017Background
- LFOC, an undocumented minor from Honduras, was placed with petitioners JAS (stepparent) and AEO (mother) in Michigan after the trial court terminated the putative father CCO’s parental rights and granted a stepparent adoption.
- Petitioners moved for “special findings” under the federal Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) statute to support an SIJ petition to USCIS, requesting findings that LFOC was dependent on a juvenile court, reunification with one or both parents was not viable due to abuse/neglect/abandonment, and return to Honduras was not in LFOC’s best interest.
- The trial court denied the motion, stating it lacked the authority to make findings relevant to SIJ status, expressing concern about making determinations tied to alienage.
- Petitioners appealed the denial as of right, arguing the family/division circuit court has authority to make the limited child-welfare predicate findings required for SIJ petitions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court erred in concluding it lacked authority, and remanded for the trial court to consider the SIJ motion on the merits and make appropriate factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state family/juvenile court has authority to make predicate factual findings for SIJ status | Michigan trial court (family division) may issue child-welfare findings (dependency, non-viable reunification, best interests) usable in an SIJ USCIS petition | Only federal government may classify on alienage; state court lacks authority to make SIJ-related findings | Held: State juvenile/family court has authority to issue limited predicate child-welfare findings for SIJ petitions; remanded for merits findings |
| Whether the requested findings would improperly involve immigration classification | Petitioners: findings are child-welfare determinations, not immigration decisions | Trial court: making such findings intrudes on federal immigration authority | Held: Findings are limited to child-welfare issues (abuse/neglect, best interests); immigration decision remains federal and outside state court determination |
| Whether the trial court’s initial entry denying findings needed review/remedy | Petitioners: trial court’s jurisdictional error requires remand for proper consideration | Trial court: (implicitly) refusal to make findings sufficient | Held: Remand is appropriate so trial court can make fact-specific findings on the merits; appellate court declines to make findings itself |
| Scope of appropriate remedy when trial court refuses on authority grounds | Petitioners: appellate court could enter required findings based on record (cited other jurisdictions) | Trial court: N/A at appellate stage | Held: Appellate court remands rather than making findings, deferring to trial court’s superior factfinding and witness credibility assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- HSP v. J.K., 223 N.J. 196 (process is hybrid; state courts make child-welfare findings; federal government makes immigration determination)
- In re J.J.X.C., 318 Ga. App. 420 (juvenile court charged with making factual findings relevant to SIJ status; error to refuse consideration)
- Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734 (juvenile court’s special findings limited to child-welfare matters; no immigration analysis)
- Matter of Diaz v. Munoz, 118 A.D.3d 989 (appellate court examples of entering findings on review in other jurisdictions)