Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded the Trial Court’s Ruling that a Court-Ordered “IME” Was Necessary
Order Published: 05/19/2022
Judge Servitto, J., author; and Judges Gadola and Redford, JJ on panel
Docket No. 360191
Genessee County Circuit Court
Holding:
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the Trial Court’s ruling that a court-ordered independent medical examination (“IME”) was necessary to look for evidence of sexual assault involving a minor child in order to afford respondent-mother due process rights.
Facts:
In this termination of parental rights matter, Respondents have seven minor children ranging in age from 4 to 14. Following removal from the home on or about June 5, 2021, AB, one of the daughters, continued to exhibit behavioral concerns. After being placed in a residential treatment facility, AB alleged respondent-father had beaten and raped her several times. The petition also alleged that respondent-mother failed to protect AB after AB told her of the abuse. The issue on appeal pertains only to AB.
On January 17, 2022, respondent-mother filed an ex parte motion for an IME. She acknowledged AB had alleged that respondent-father had raped her repeatedly since she was six years old, and the abuse included vaginal penetration, but she denied that AB had ever told her about the abuse. On January 21, 2022, the trial court granted the ex parte motion. Both the LGAL and DHHS objected to the ex-parte order for failure to comply with MCR 3.207 along with the IME not being in AB’s best interests.
A hearing to address the objections to the ex parte order was held on January 25, 2022 and the trial court issued a written opinion and order on February 3, 2022 where it conceded it should not have entered the order ex parte and instead should have set the matter for oral argument; thus, the court set aside its earlier ex parte order. However, analyzing the matter under a due process framework, the court proceeded to grant the motion for an IME of AB to determine if there was physical evidence of sexual assault. AB, through her LGAL, filed an application for leave to appeal that ruling and the Court of Appeals granted the application.
Key Appellate Rulings:
While parents possess fundamental interests in the care and management of their children, this right is not absolute, as the state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding the health and welfare of children. In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 409-410; 852 NW2d 524, 532 (2014). In balancing these interests, and in determining what process the state owes parents in a child-protective proceeding, Michigan courts have followed the United States Supreme Court’s test set forth in Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893; 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976)
The Eldridge factors balance (1) the importance of the interests at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of interests because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interests.
Addressing the first factor--the importance of the interests at stake--ordering AB to undergo an IME is guaranteed to encroach upon AB’s interest in privacy and bodily autonomy. Additionally, the importance of considering the mental health effect of a forced sexual assault examination is particularly salient in AB’s circumstances given that the record indicated she is a child struggling with numerous mental health and psychological challenges. This Court found that the requested IME impacts the private interests of AB significantly more than those of respondent-mother.
Evaluating the second Eldridge factor--the risk of an erroneous deprivation of interests because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards--any evidentiary value derived from the IME is unlikely because so much time has passed since AB was removed from respondent-father's custody. It is highly unlikely that an IME of AB would definitively resolve the question of whether AB was sexually assaulted and even less likely that the results of the IME would resolve whether AB in fact told respondent-mother about any assault.
Analyzing the third Eldridge factor--the government’s interests--the greatest interest the government has in this situation is to protect the physical and mental health and safety of minors like AB. Forcing AB to undergo an IME undermines this interest because it may be detrimental to AB’s health. Broadly, allowing trial courts to force sexual assault complainants to undergo medical examinations, particularly when the examination will have minimal probative value, could have the unintended effect of deterring disclosure of sexual assault.
Balancing the highly invasive nature of an IME and its potentially harmful effect on an un-consenting minor against the limited evidentiary value that an IME may provide in this case, the trial court erred when concluding a court-ordered IME to look for evidence of sexual assault was necessary to afford respondent-mother due process rights.
