MSC To Address Whether Trial Court Properly Took Jurisdiction Over Child

The Michigan Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the application to appeal the decision in In re Holbrook, Minor, a case involving statutory grounds for a trial court to take jurisdiction over a minor child.

In Holbrook (Docket No. 164489), the respondent’s 13-year-old son, JJH, had a history of mental health issues. The Oakland County Circuit Court found there was sufficient evidence to take jurisdiction over the child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1). That statute 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. …”

In May 2022, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the Oakland County trial court’s decision (Docket No. 359504).

The respondent appealed. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in Holbrook for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 2, 2023. *see update below

Background

After spending several weeks at a mental health facility for inpatient treatment, JJH was moved to a short-term crisis center to help prepare him for re-integration into the respondent’s home. However, JJH threatened suicide if he was returned to the respondent’s home.

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had requested that the respondent fill out Community Mental Health (CMH) forms to effectuate JJH’s return to the respondent’s home. However, the respondent did not complete the forms because she feared for her safety and the safety of her sons. As a result, the DHHS filed a petition in the Oakland County Circuit Court, asking it 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). Specifically, the trial court found that the respondent neglected or refused to provide proper medical care by not completing the CMH forms.

COA Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to take jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Judges Brock A. Swartzle, Thomas C. Cameron and Sima G. Patel were on the panel that issued the unpublished opinion.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals noted the trial court reasoned: “[A]lthough I find that mother’s behaviors all along the way have been as much as she possibly could to provide proper care and custody for her child, I am going to find that because that child does come under the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1), that ‘the parent or person legally responsible for care and maintenance of the juvenile when able to do so neglected or refused to provide proper medical care.’ And I only make that finding based on the failure to complete the CMH documentation. That’s - that’s all I got. [T]he records are replete that this child not only has multiple attempts of suicide, [but he] has threatened to kill himself or to kill his mother if [he] came into her care. But the law doesn’t provide for when a parent can’t handle the overwhelming circumstances of their child’s mental health.”

According to the Court of Appeals, the case was similar to In re Hockett, Minor, ___ Mich App ___ (2021) (Docket No. 353132). In Hockett, the respondent’s child was hospitalized after his mental health problems escalated to threats of suicide and harm to another child. The respondent refused to pick up the child from the hospital when he was released because she believed that he needed additional help and because she was homeless. The trial court held there were statutory grounds for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), finding that 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 wellbeing.” The respondent appealed that decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Like the mother in Hockett, the respondent in the present case was unable to manage JJH’s complex mental health needs, the Court of Appeals observed. “The evidence revealed that JJH was unable to return to respondent’s home, there was no other relative who could care for him, and the short-term crisis facility was unable to address his mental health needs. Respondent had the physical capacity to complete the CMH paperwork to obtain the resources for JJH’s mental health treatment, but she did not do so. As a result, JJH did not have the necessary resources for his mental health care, his mental well-being was subjected to a substantial risk of harm, and he was without proper custody or guardianship. The evidence established that the only way JJH was going to get the mental health treatment he needed was for the trial court to force the issue and exercise jurisdiction over JJH. 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). Culpability is not a factor here. …”

Although the respondent argued that her son was not without proper care or custody because he was in residential, inpatient care, it was “undisputed that the short-term crisis center was not capable of addressing JJH’s mental health needs and had released JJH from its care,” the Court of Appeals explained. “JJH was not transported to the residential treatment facility until after the petition was filed and the trial court assumed jurisdiction over [him]. Thus, the threat to JJH’s well-being had not ceased at the time that the petition was filed and there is no clear error on this basis.”

MSC Oral Arguments

At the March 2, 2023, oral arguments on the respondent’s application to appeal, the Supreme Court will focus on three issues:

1) whether the Oakland County Circuit Court properly assumed jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1).

2) whether In re Hockett, Minor was correctly decided.

3) whether the trial court should have instead assumed jurisdiction over JJH pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(3)(A) (“The court has the following authority and jurisdiction:

… (b) Jurisdiction in proceedings concerning a juvenile under 18 years of age found within the county: … (3) If the juvenile is dependent and is in danger of substantial physical or psychological harm. The juvenile may be found to be dependent when any of the following occurs: (A) The juvenile is homeless or not domiciled with a parent or other legally responsible person. …”)

In addition, the Supreme Court invited the State Bar of Michigan Children’s Law Section and Family Law Section to file amicus briefs. For more information on the Supreme Court filings in the case, including the amicus briefs, click here.

UPDATE: After this blog was posted, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order stating “On order of the Court, this case is sua sponte adjourned from the March 2023 session of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reschedule the case for oral argument at the April 2023 session.” The Court also directed the parties to file supplemental briefs within 21 days, addressing several questions.