In re JCR II/JCR/JCR/JCR, Minors

• Published: May 23, 2024 (Maldonado, P.J., and Patel and N.P. Hood, JJ)

• Docket No. 367472

• St. Clair County Circuit Court -  Probate Division

Holding: “The circuit court abused its discretion by declining [petitioner] to permit discovery of information relevant to the Section 45 hearing [from MCI, Department of Health and Human Services, and the involved adoption agency].” A child’s case files are relevant for purposes of determining whether the MCI superintendent’s decision to withhold consent for adoption was arbitrary and capricious. Citing CADP, 341 Mich App 370, 386; 990 NW2d 386 (2022) (CADP I). Because petitioner was not able to access the children’s case files maintained by MCI, DHHS, and the involved adoption agency in discovery, she was deprived of meaningful discovery related to a hearing where her burden was to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the decision to withhold consent for adoption was arbitrary and capricious. The circuit court abused its discretion by declining to permit discovery of information relevant to the Section 45 hearing.

Facts: The Petitioner, Ms. Ballard, sought to adopt all four of her grandchildren after their biological parent’s rights were terminated. Throughout the proceedings, the paternal aunt and uncle had JCR I and JCR III reside with them, and the licensed foster parents of JCR II and JCR IV had these two reside with them. Both the paternal aunt and uncle and the foster parents expressed to MCI (Michigan Children’s Institute) that they wished to adopt the respective children in their care. MCI prepared adoption assessments for each child. The superintendent of MCI withheld consent to adopt for Petitioner but consented to the paternal aunt and uncle as well as to the foster parents.

Petitioners challenged the superintendent’s decision in the circuit court. Before the Section 45 Hearing, Petitioner served subpoenas on MCI, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and an involved adoption agency, requesting unredacted copies of files that pertain to each grandchild. Responding, DHHS moved to quash the subpoenas. Next, Petitioner moved to compel discovery, arguing that she was entitled to the entire file maintained by MCI, DHHS, and the adoption agency in order to support her adoption petition and Section 45 motion. Before the hearing, the circuit court addressed Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery. Ultimately, it denied Petitioner’s motion, reasoning that she was only entitled to documents relevant to the Section 45 hearing.  The Trial Court held that the MCI’s decision to withhold consent was not arbitrary and capricious and dismissed Petitioner’s adoption petition.

Key Appellate Rulings 

MCR 2.302(B)(1) governs the general scope of civil discovery in Michigan. It provides:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, taking into account all pertinent factors, including whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, the complexity of the case, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, and the parties’ resources and access to relevant information. Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

“[The Michigan Court of Appeals] confirmed that discovery is permissible in adoption cases and that the court rules governing civil discovery generally apply to adoption proceedings.” In re CADP, 341 Mich App 370, 386; 990 NW2d 386 (2022) (CADP I). Additionally, “[b]ecause it is [the] petitioners’ burden in a § 45 hearing to establish “by clear and convincing evidence that the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious,” MCL 710.45(7), [the] petitioners must be afforded the means to attempt to carry that burden.” Id. at 386.
Takeaway: If a circuit court does not allow complete discovery of information relevant to the Section 45 hearing, the Michigan Court of Appeals can vacate the circuit court’s order and remand for additional proceedings. Additionally, on remand, the circuit court shall conduct discovery and hold a new Section 45 Hearing.

Judge Maldonado's Concurring Opinion 

The concurring opinion does not take issue with majority’s discovery analysis. Instead, the concurring opinion focuses on the arbitrary and capricious standard set by the Legislature and whether the appellate courts’ long-time interpretation of that standard has taken it to an extreme.  Rather than requiring MCI to have “any good reason” why the petition was denied (as stated in case law), it “is the absence of any good reason to withhold consent, not the presence of good reasons to grant it.”  It is that formulation of that analysis “that indicates that the representative was acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”