Juvenile Guardianship Vacated: Trial Court Did Not Comply With Statutes, Court Rules

The Michigan Court of Appeals has vacated an order placing a minor child under a juvenile guardianship because the trial court 1) did not put its best-interest findings on the record and 2) did not conduct a hearing before ordering the guardianship.

The respondent-mother in In re G.A. Burns, Minor (Docket No. 373903) appealed the trial court’s order placing her minor child, GB, under a juvenile guardianship. She argued the guardianship order should be vacated because the trial court did not comply with the applicable statutes and court rules.

“We agree and vacate the order implementing the guardianship,” the Court of Appeals said in a published opinion.

According to the Court of Appeals, the trial court primarily erred by:

• not placing its best-interest findings on the record.

• granting the guardianship without conducting a hearing pursuant to MCR 3.979(B).

“In these ways, the trial court failed to comply with its requirements under the relevant court rules and statutes,” the Court of Appeals said. “Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s ex parte order implementing a guardianship for GB and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct a guardianship hearing consistent with this opinion.”

Judge Michelle M. Rick, Judge Allie Greenleaf Maldonado and Judge Daniel S. Korobkin joined the per curiam opinion.

Background

According to the Court of Appeals opinion, the respondent “had a history of substance abuse that resulted in GB’s removal from her care between 2021 and 2022. However, she complied with – and benefited from – her case service plan, and the case regarding GB was closed in October 2022.”

In November 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed the present action against the respondent in Montcalm County Circuit Court, after the respondent’s 1-month-old child, KH, died in her care. DHHS alleged the respondent “suffered from one drug overdose shortly before KH died and another shortly after, and that law enforcement officials found evidence of heroin usage in respondent-mother’s home.” However, DHHS “did not establish to whom the drug paraphernalia belonged.” Further, at the time of KH’s death, the respondent “complied with a drug screen that was negative for all illegal and unprescribed substances.”

The trial court granted DHHS’s request to remove GB from the respondent’s care, exercised jurisdiction over GB and placed GB with relatives. The respondent pleaded no contest to the allegations in the petition, at which time the trial court stated that DHHS would suspend any action toward termination pending KH’s autopsy results. The autopsy report subsequently indicated that KH had no external or internal injuries, had an upper respiratory tract infection and “died a sudden, unexpected death.” The autopsy report classified KH’s cause of death as “indeterminate.”

Nonetheless, DHHS recommended terminating the respondent’s parental rights based on her alleged overdoses, the presence of drug paraphernalia in her home and the death of KH. The trial court then ruled that DHHS did not have to undertake reasonable efforts to reunite GB and the respondent, and a case service plan was never put in place. The trial court directed DHHS to file a petition to terminate the respondent’s parental rights. After doing so, the respondent, GB’s lawyer-guardian ad litem and DHHS stipulated to a change in GB’s permanency planning goal from termination to guardianship.

The guardianship was not implemented for a year-and-a-half. During that time, even though the respondent did not have a case service plan, the record showed that she maintained her sobriety through medically assisted treatment, had stable employment and voluntarily participated in substance abuse counseling and negative drug screens.

In addition, the respondent made several attempts to withdraw her plea, discontinue the trial court’s jurisdiction and prevent the appointment of GB’s guardians. After a permanency planning hearing, the trial court entered an ex parte order placing GB in a juvenile guardianship.

The respondent appealed.

No Ineffective Assistance

On appeal, the Court of Appeals first rejected the respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The respondent asserted that her attorney was ineffective for suggesting that she stipulate to the change in permanency planning goal from termination to juvenile guardianship. She also claimed her attorney failed to challenge the related finding that DHHS was not obliged to create a case service plan.

“We disagree,” the Court of Appeals stated. “Respondent-mother neglected to provide this Court with a copy of the stipulation, which impedes our review of her counsel’s assistance in this regard. The record reflects that respondent mother’s attorney informed her that, pursuant to the stipulation, she would be allowed supervised parenting time and family therapy sessions with GB at the discretion of his therapist. However, DHHS never actually approved parenting time, later stating that it had ‘consistently been the position of the Department’ that there not be any visitation. Without a copy of the stipulation, this Court is unable to resolve any such discrepancy in the parties’ understanding of their agreement.”

The Court of Appeals further said it was “clear” the parties had “stipulated to a change in the permanency goal from termination to a guardianship. The parties did not stipulate to a guardianship, preserving respondent-mother’s right to later challenge a guardianship. Additionally, the stipulation was beneficial to both parties.”

Accordingly, the attorney’s “recommendation to enter the stipulation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness … but rather was sound strategy to avoid termination of respondent-mother’s parental rights while providing her a possible avenue for parenting time …,” the Court of Appeals said. “Therefore, counsel’s assistance was not ineffective.”

Guardianship Vacated

Next, the Court of Appeals addressed the respondent’s argument that the trial court failed to comply with the statutes and court rules governing juvenile guardianships.

“MCL 712A.19a governs juvenile guardianships … during permanency planning hearings, as in the instant case,” the Court of Appeals explained. “[A] court may order a guardianship only if it determines that doing so is in the child’s best interests. … In deciding whether the appointment of a guardian is in the child’s best interests, ‘the court may consider the best-interest factors from the Child Custody Act, the Adoption Code, or any other factors that may be relevant under the circumstances of a particular case.’ … After a trial court finds that appointment of a juvenile guardian is in the best interests of the minor child, but before entering a guardianship order, a circuit court must direct the DHHS to investigate the proposed guardian and submit its findings to the trial court. … Within seven days of receiving the findings, the court must enter an order appointing a juvenile guardian or schedule the matter for a hearing.”

Here, the trial court “erred in a couple of ways,” the Court of Appeals observed. “First, the trial court neglected to place its best-interest findings on the record. At the final permanency planning hearing, the trial court stated that a guardianship was ‘appropriate.’ But the court neglected to explain which factors supported a determination that the appointment of a guardian was in GB’s best interests. There was no other hearing and no other findings on the record until the trial court entered its ex parte order …. [T]he statutory scheme requires the court to base its guardianship decision on the child’s best interests, which inherently necessitates articulating those findings. On this record, we determine that the trial court failed to do so.”

In addition, the trial court improperly granted the guardianship without first conducting a hearing under MCR 3.979(B), the Court of Appeals said. “Child protective proceedings involve a parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their child, and the procedures employed in the appointment of a guardian ensure that there will not be an erroneous deprivation of these interests. … As noted, the stipulation addressed a change in DHHS’s goal, it did not extinguish respondent-mother’s right to challenge a guardianship. And, in fact, she did challenge the guardianship. At the November 12, 2024 permanency planning hearing, respondent mother’s trial counsel voiced concern about the administration of the court rules, as well as the trial court’s repeated finding that ‘returning the child would cause a substantial risk of harm to the child’s life, physical health, and mental well-being.’ To address these points, respondent-mother’s trial counsel requested to question DHHS on the record.”

The trial court “initially rebuffed this request and told trial counsel that any concerns about the goal of a guardianship should have been addressed when the parties first stipulated to it,” the Court of Appeals explained. “Trial counsel agreed that ‘certain decisions should have been evaluated more than a year ago’ and wanted the opportunity to finally be heard. The trial court indicated that it would conduct a separate guardianship hearing, which would have permitted respondent-mother to exercise her right to challenge the guardianship. However, the trial court did not conduct another hearing before it entered the ex parte guardianship order. Thus, the trial court erroneously implemented the guardianship without giving respondent-mother the opportunity to protect her fundamental interests.”

Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not “comply with its requirements under the relevant court rules and statutes,” the Court of Appeals concluded, vacating the guardianship order and remanding the matter for the trial court to conduct a guardianship hearing.