Michigan Court Of Appeals Holds Probate Court Has Affirmative Duty To Provide Access To GAL Reports To Interested Parties
In re Conservatorship of GT, DT, and JT, Minors
Opinion Published: April 14, 2026 (Rick, P.J., and Yates and Mariani, JJ.)
Docket Nos. 371518, 371519, 371523
Wayne County Probate Court
Elizabeth Parker of Speaker Law Firm represented Petitioner-Appellant.
Holding: Under MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a), a probate court has an affirmative duty to afford all interested persons the opportunity to examine and controvert a guardian ad litem (GAL) report once it has been received into evidence—regardless of whether the interested person formally requests access and regardless of whether the report is designated as confidential. The Court of Appeals reversed the probate court’s appointment of an independent conservator and remanded for a new hearing at which petitioner-father must be given the opportunity to review the “confidential exhibit” submitted to the probate court directly by the GAL.
Facts: Petitioner Nicholas Temples sought appointment as conservator for his three minor children—ages 9, 11, and 13—after each inherited $100,000 from their great-grandfather’s estate. The probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), who filed written reports recommending appointment of an independent conservator rather than petitioner. The GAL’s recommendation relied in part on a “confidential exhibit” submitted directly to the court.
Before the hearing, petitioner emailed the GAL requesting information about the contents of the confidential file. The GAL declined to share it, stating she would defer to the court. Petitioner did not file a formal motion with the probate court for access to the report, nor did he orally request access at the hearing.
At the hearing, petitioner testified that he intended to manage the children’s inheritance conservatively and expressed a preference for trusts to ensure funds were used for education and other productive purposes. He also indicated that the appropriate age for distribution would “depend on the child.” The probate court declined to appoint petitioner as conservator, reasoning that his desire to control distributions beyond age 18 conflicted with MCL 700.5431, which requires termination of a minor conservatorship upon the child reaching the age of majority. The court also expressed concern that petitioner sought to use the conservatorship to “hold the purse-strings” over his children. An independent conservator was appointed instead, and this appeal followed.
Key Appellate Holdings:
MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a) imposes an affirmative, unconditional duty on the probate court.
The court rule provides that “[a]ny interested person shall be afforded an opportunity to examine and controvert reports received into evidence.” The word “shall” is mandatory, and “afford” means to make available naturally or inevitably. Critically, the rule places the burden on the court—not the party—to ensure access is provided. It does not require an interested person to file a formal motion or make an oral request, and it does not contain an exception for confidential reports.
No exception exists for confidential GAL reports.
The rule does not distinguish between confidential and non-confidential reports. Had the Supreme Court intended to create such an exception, it could have done so expressly. Because the probate court received the GAL’s confidential report into evidence and expressly relied upon it in rendering its decision, the court was required to make that report available to petitioner and afford him the opportunity to challenge it—regardless of the report’s confidential designation.
An interested person’s affirmative attempt to access the report is relevant context.
Although the court’s obligation under MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a) does not hinge on a request by the interested person, the record here reflected that petitioner did affirmatively seek access—emailing the GAL before the hearing to ask about the report’s contents. The GAL’s refusal and referral back to the court, without the court then providing access, was inconsistent with the rule’s plain language. The court’s failure to provide access was procedurally unfair, even if not structural error.
An unpreserved procedural fairness issue may be reviewed to avoid manifest injustice.
Petitioner did not raise the MCR 5.121(D)(2)(a) issue in the probate court, which would ordinarily preclude appellate review. However, the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to review the unpreserved issue, finding that declining to do so would result in manifest injustice. A proceeding in which a court relies on undisclosed evidence to resolve a contested issue affecting statutory priority and fiduciary appointment undermines the fundamental fairness of the adjudicative process.
