Speaker Law
Blog

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the protective orders that were issued in these consolidated appeals, ruling the probate court “put[] the cart before the horse” when finding that the protective order requirements in the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (EPIC) were satisfied.

The Delta County Probate Court improperly exercised jurisdiction in this minor guardianship case and, as a result, erroneously appointed the children’s maternal grandmother as their guardian, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

A trial court applied the correct legal standard when denying the Department of Health and Human Services’ petition for temporary custody over the respondent’s children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.

The father in Blakeman was being kept out of his home and away from his four children pursuant to an Ingham County trial court order, which was contrary to the recommendations of Children’s Protective Services (CPS) case workers.

In Luna v Regnier, the Tuscola County Circuit Court completely suspended the mother’s parenting time with her children, finding there was clear and convincing evidence the children’s mental and emotional health was endangered by allowing her to visit with them.

The petitioners appealed, arguing their case was timely brought before the ALJ. They claimed an evidentiary hearing would have shown this to be true, but the ALJ made factual findings against them without giving them the opportunity to present their evidence.

The case arose when the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned the Otsego Circuit Court, Family Division, to remove minor JF from her parents. The Department alleged that JF’s parents had failed to adequately attend to JF’s medical needs by missing several of her medical appointments; not refilling her prescription medications; and failing to provide adequate living conditions for JF.

In this case (In re Trumble, No 330627) Respondent Mother appealed the Gladwin Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her child arguing that the trial court violated her due process by its failure to sua sponte or on its own appoint an attorney to represent her. The Court of Appeals, affirmed the trial court order, stating that because the respondent knowingly declined the offer of appointed counsel at the preliminary hearing and had never shown she suffered from an obvious cognitive impairment, she failed to show that the trial court denied her due process by declining to sua sponte appoint counsel.

The Court of Appeals (COA) vacated a trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of a cognitively impaired young woman due to the repeated failure of the DHHS to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family.