Michigan Court of Appeals Finds Trial Court Violated Language Access Rules, Delayed Minor's Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
Opinion Published: June 17, 2025 (Wallace, Rick, Garrett)
Court of Appeals Docket No. 372523
Macomb Probate Court, Family Division
Holding: The trial court violated MCR 1.111(B)(1) by 1) requiring Appellant to make multiple interpreter requests and 2) not allowing the present interpreter who qualified under MCR 1.111(F)(2) to be used. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that the record supports that it is not in DRRR’s best interests to return to Guatemala and should instead remain in Appellant’s custody in the United States.
Facts: In October 2021, DRRR came to the United States from Guatemala to live with her sister, the Appellant. While in Guatemala, DRRR lived in poverty, frequently missed meals, and was unable to focus on her education due to working every day, and her father abandoned her when she around two years old. On January 18, 2024, Appellant filed a petition seeking to become DRRR’s full guardian. On April 16, 2024, the trial court granted the petition and appointed Appellant as DRRR’s full guardian. The trial court then “accepted a filing of Appellant’s motion to make factual findings regarding DRRR’s SIJ classification and a hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2024, which was only five days before DRRR’s 18th birthday.”
At the hearing, a certified foreign language translator was not present. However, Appellant’s attorney had a person capable of translating present at the hearing, as permitted under MCR 1.111(F)(2). The trial court refused to accept her as a translator because she was not certified by the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO). The trial court then gave Appellant’s counsel only approximately three hours to procure a certified interpreter. The attorney procured a SCAO certified interpreter, but she could only appear via videoconferencing because she was located two hours away from the courthouse. “Counsel informed the court’s clerk, but was subsequently told that the court would only allow an in-person interpreter.” Counsel procured another interpreter who could appear in-person, but three minutes before the deadline, Counsel was informed that the hearing was adjourned until June 17, 2024, after DRRR turned 18. It was then again adjourned to August 5, 2024.
At the August 5 hearing, “the trial court denied [Appellant’s] motion, claiming it lacked jurisdiction over DRRR because she was 18 years old. Appellant moved for reconsideration on August 26, 2024, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.”
Key Appellate Rulings:
Providing an interpreter is a continuing obligation.
In People v Hieu Van Hoang, 328 Mich App 45; 935 NW2d 396 (2019), the Court of Appeals noted that “once a litigant or counsel requests an interpreter and the court agrees to appoint one, the trial court ‘has an ongoing obligation under MCR 1.111(B)(1) to ensure that Hoang received such interpretation services as were necessary to ‘meaningfully participate in the case or court proceeding . . . .’’” Id. at 57. Requiring multiple requests, one before each proceeding, is a violation of MCR 1.111(B)(1), as well as the access policy of the trial court in this case.
Courts must voir dire or permit use of qualified interpreters when they are qualified under MCR 1.111(F)(2).
The trial court erred when it failed to comply with MCR 1.111(F)(2) by refusing to voir dire or otherwise permit DRRR to use the qualified interpreter whom counsel brought to the April 16, 2024, hearing. If the trial court had followed MCR 1.111(F)(2), they would have found that the interpreter was someone “capable of conveying the intent and content of the speaker’s words sufficiently to allow the court to conduct the proceeding without prejudice to the limited English proficient person.” Based on these errors, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court deprived DRRR of meaningful access to justice.
Where the record on appeal sufficiently provides the necessary evidence to make the predicate factual findings pertinent to SIJ status, the Court may do so in the interests of justice.
The Court of Appeals determined that, pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7), considering the trial court’s failure to proceed to a timely hearing due to the trial court’s errors and because the record sufficiently provided the relevant facts, the Court could grant Appellant’s request to make the predicate factual findings regarding DRRR’s SIJ classification. After considering the relevant evidence and case law, the Court of Appeals found by a preponderance of the evidence that reunification between DRRR and her parents was not viable due to abandonment and neglect and that it was in DRRR’s best interests to remain in the United States in the custody of the Appellant.
