MSC Declares ‘In Re Holbrook’ Moot, Justices Call For Legislative Reform

The case of In re Holbrook, Minor - which involves alleged parental neglect and the statutory grounds for taking jurisdiction over a minor child - is moot, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled.

In Holbrook, the respondent’s 13-year-old son, JJH, had a history of mental health issues. In November 2021, the Oakland County Circuit Court held there was sufficient evidence to take jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1), which says:

“The court has the following authority and jurisdiction: …

(b) Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age found within the county:

(1) Whose parent or other person legally responsible for the care and maintenance of the juvenile, when able to do so, neglects or refuses to provide proper or necessary support, education, medical, surgical, or other care necessary for his or her health or morals, who is subject to a substantial risk of harm to his or her mental well-being, who is abandoned by his or her parents, guardian, or other custodian, or who is without proper custody or guardianship. …”

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision (Docket No. 359504) in May 2022. The respondent appealed that ruling and the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case (Docket No. 164489). After hearing oral arguments, the high court issued an order remanding Holbrook in July 2023. In that order, the justices said they were sending the case back to the trial court “for a hearing to determine whether the respondent will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the adjudication and whether this case has become moot.” Accordingly, the trial court then held a hearing and declared the case moot in September 2023.

Now, the Michigan Supreme Court has vacated the trial court and Court of Appeals opinions in Holbrook, and has dismissed the appeal “for the reason that the case is moot.”

Justice Megan K. Cavanagh agreed with the dismissal, but wrote a separate concurrence to explain that “the available bases for trial courts to take jurisdiction in situations where a parent is unable to manage their child’s mental health crisis are inadequate.”

Justice Cavanagh, joined by Chief Justice Elizabeth T. Clement, “urge[d] the Legislature to consider creating an alternative jurisdictional basis that enable the state to provide services without requiring courts to find parental neglect.”

‘Holbrook’ Background

The minor, JJH, had spent several weeks at a mental health facility. He was then moved to a short-term crisis center to help prepare him for re-integration into the respondent’s home. JJH, however, threatened suicide if he was returned to the respondent’s home.

In the meantime, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the respondent fill out Community Mental Health (CMH) forms to effectuate JJH’s return to the home. The respondent did not complete the forms because she feared for her safety and the safety of her sons if JJH returned. The DHHS then filed a petition asking the Oakland County Circuit Court to take jurisdiction over JJH. The trial court ruled there was sufficient evidence to establish a statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1). The trial court specifically found that the respondent neglected or refused to provide proper medical care by not completing the CMH forms.

The respondent appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. According to the Court of Appeals, the respondent’s case was similar to In re Hockett, Minor, ___ Mich App ___ (2021) (Docket No. 353132), where the respondent’s child was hospitalized after his mental health problems escalated to threats of suicide and harm to another child. The trial court in Hockett held there were statutory grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), finding the respondent “failed to provide proper and necessary support and care for [the minor child], who was subject to a substantial risk of harm to his mental health and well-being.” The respondent in Hockett appealed that decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The respondent in Holbrook - like the respondent in Hockett - was unable to manage JJH’s mental health needs, the Court of Appeals said in its May 2022 opinion. “While we acknowledge the difficult nature of the situation, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court was mistaken in finding statutory grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1),” the appeals court said.

The respondent in Holbrook appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. At oral arguments, the justices focused on several issues, including 1) whether In re Hockett, Minor was correctly decided and 2) whether the trial court should have assumed jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(3)(A). The high court also invited input from the State Bar of Michigan Children’s Law Section and Family Law Section. (For details on the case filings, click here.)

After hearing oral arguments, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order in July 2022 finding that, although the trial court assumed jurisdiction over JJH under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), JJH had since been returned to the respondent and the trial court had terminated jurisdiction. “Therefore, the question is whether there remain collateral consequences from the adjudication, which would render the case not moot,” the justices said. According to the high court, “[O]ur Court is not the most appropriate forum for fact-finding. Rather, the trial court is the better forum to make factual determinations. … Therefore, … we remand this case to the Oakland Circuit Court Family Division for a hearing to determine whether the respondent will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the adjudication and whether this case has become moot.”

Concurrence: Reform Is Needed

The Michigan Supreme Court, in its November 2023 order declaring Holbrook moot, simply stated:

“We find that the circumstances of this case warrant vacatur, where the respondent diligently worked to improve her child’s condition while protecting other minors in her care and was ultimately successful. We therefore VACATE the November 10, 2021 judgment of the Oakland Circuit Court Family Division and the May 19, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we DISMISS the application for leave for the reason that the case is moot.”

Justice Cavanagh concurred with the dismissal. She wrote separately, however, to urge the Legislature to create a “no-fault procedure” that lets the state intervene in these types of cases.

According to Justice Cavanagh, MCL 712A.2(b)(1) is a “poor fit” for parents who are in the same position as the respondent in Holbrook. “Respondent had a suitable home for the child, but at the time the petition was filed, the child could not return home without endangering respondent and her family. And as this Court recognizes, ‘respondent diligently worked to improve her child’s condition while protecting other minors in her care and was ultimately successful.’ Under these circumstances, it cannot reasonably be contended that respondent ‘neglect[ed] or refuse[d] to provide proper or necessary support’ to JJH. … Nor does it appear that any other statutory provision cleanly applies to circumstances like this.”

Justice Cavanagh said that she “question[ed]” whether JJH was “homeless or not domiciled with a parent” because the respondent had refused to pick him up from the treatment facility. “But even assuming JJH was homeless and MCL 712A.2(b)(3)(A) applies to this particular case, the provision will likely not be applicable in every case involving a non-neglectful parent who is unable to provide for their child’s mental health needs.”

The available grounds for jurisdiction over a minor child “are ill-equipped to address situations like this,” Justice Cavanagh wrote. “JJH came to the attention of the court system because he needed intensive mental health treatment and his parent lacked the resources to provide it. I echo the concerns of the referee: ‘This mother was fully engaged in her son’s mental health treatment. Is she neglectful when she feels she has exhausted all resources and is attempting to protect herself and her family by demanding help from the only professionals who could help?’”

Moreover, the respondent “is not the only parent in this predicament,” Justice Cavanagh explained, citing a November 2022 Detroit Free Press article which indicated that families with children in mental health crises report themselves to Children’s Protective Services so they can get help in the face of “inaccessible and often unaffordable” mental health services. “The laws on the books simply do not account for parents who are overwhelmed by their children’s mental health crises and need state intervention. It strikes me as fundamentally unfair to deem parents faced with such insurmountable challenges as unfit or neglectful. Some states provide an alternative process to allow courts to take jurisdiction and place children in state custody without finding neglect. In other words, some states have a ‘no-fault’ dependency avenue.”

Therefore, “I ask the Legislature to consider creating a no-fault procedure that allows the state to intervene without requiring courts to adjudicate parents as unfit when they are struggling to support children with complex mental health needs,” Justice Cavanagh said. “Under the status quo, courts may be understandably tempted to invoke inapplicable statutory provisions to find a parent unfit in order to provide needed services. But as this Court has recognized, doing so may impose legal and collateral consequences on parents. … Cases like this, where parents are undeserving of those possible consequences, illustrate why reform is needed.”