in Re Tjb, Djb Minors
331090
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Petitioner (then 19) sought to adopt her half-siblings after parental rights were terminated and the children became permanent wards of the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI).
- The MCI adoption worker recommended denial; MCI superintendent Bruce Hoffman formally denied consent, citing three factors: continuity/stability of current placement, petitioner’s ability/willingness to provide permanency, and the psychological relationship with the children.
- Hoffman found the children bonded to their foster family, petitioner lacked parenting experience and financial stability, and had limited time due to school and jobs.
- Petitioner filed a motion under MCL 710.45(7) (a Section 45 motion) asking the circuit court to set aside Hoffman’s denial as arbitrary and capricious; she sought to call the children’s former L-GAL (Bruder) as a witness but the court excluded that testimony.
- The trial court denied the Section 45 motion, concluding petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Hoffman’s denial was arbitrary and capricious; petitioner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review: scope of appellate/circuit review under MCL 710.45(7) | Petitioner: court could review Hoffman’s reasons and make credibility determinations; exclusion of evidence impaired review | State/MCI: review is not de novo; petitioner must prove arbitrary and capricious by clear and convincing evidence | Court: affirmed—trial court properly applied arbitrary-and-capricious standard; no de novo review or reweighing of correctness |
| Sufficiency of reasons for denial (continuity, ability, psychological relationship) | Petitioner: Hoffman’s decision was arbitrary/capricious and based on inaccurate information | MCI: Hoffman articulated nonwhimsical, fact-based reasons (attachments to foster family; petitioner’s lack of experience, time, and finances) | Court: Hoffman’s reasons were reasonable; petitioner failed to show arbitrariness by clear and convincing evidence |
| Exclusion of L‑GAL Bruder’s testimony | Petitioner: excluding Bruder prevented proving arbitrariness and violated due process | MCI: statute bars calling an L‑GAL as a witness regarding case matters; L‑GAL participates as representative, not fact witness | Court: no abuse of discretion; statutory proscription applicable and Bruder’s testimony would not have changed outcome |
| Constitutional claims (due process & equal protection) | Petitioner: application of MCL 710.45(7) violated due process and equal protection | MCI: statute rationally related to legitimate interest in protecting children; no fundamental right implicated | Court: rejected claims; rational basis applies and statute is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Keast, 278 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App.) (describing arbitrary-and-capricious review under MCL 710.45)
- In re ASF, 311 Mich. App. 420 (Mich. Ct. App.) (L‑GAL participation limits and Section 45 procedure)
- In re Martin, 450 Mich. 204 (Mich.) (clear-and-convincing evidence definition)
- Goolsby v. Detroit, 419 Mich. 651 (Mich.) (definitions of arbitrary and capricious)
- In re Cotton, 208 Mich. App. 180 (Mich. Ct. App.) (role of superintendent and non-de novo review)
- In re Utrera, 281 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Brinkley v. Brinkley, 277 Mich. App. 23 (Mich. Ct. App.) (statutory due process analysis and rational-basis review)
- In re Brock, 442 Mich. 101 (Mich.) (state interest in protecting children in adoption contexts)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 447 Mich. 871 (Mich.) (appellate review for legal error)