MSC: Trial Court Must Determine Whether Child Jurisdiction Case Is Moot

The Michigan Supreme Court has remanded the case of In re Holbrook, Minor to the Oakland County Circuit Court for a hearing to determine whether the case has become moot. Holbrook involves the statutory grounds for a trial court to take jurisdiction over a minor child.

In Holbrook, the respondent’s 13-year-old son, JJH, had a history of mental health issues. The Oakland County Circuit Court had ruled 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. …”

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision (Docket No. 359504) in May 2022. The respondent appealed. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case (Docket No. 164489) on April 5, 2023 and issued its order remanding Holbrook on July 14, 2023.

In the 8-page order, the Supreme Court said it was remanding the case “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.”

Justice David F. Viviano, joined by Justice Brian K. Zahra, concurred with the decision to remand the case, saying he wrote separately “because I believe a strong argument can be made that the case is moot.”

Background & COA Decision

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.

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.

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 Remand Order

At oral arguments in April 2023, the Supreme Court focused on three issues:

1) whether the trial 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 Supreme Court also invited input from the State Bar of Michigan Children’s Law Section and Family Law Section. For details on the Supreme Court filings in the case, including amicus briefs, click here.

In its July 2023 order, the justices noted that while the trial court assumed jurisdiction over JJH under MCL 712A.2(b)(1), JJH has since been returned to the respondent and the trial court has terminated jurisdiction. “Therefore, the question is whether there remain collateral consequences from the adjudication, which would render the case not moot,” the high court said, explaining that a case is not moot “’where a court’s adverse judgment may have collateral legal consequences’ for at least one of the parties.”

The respondent’s status on Michigan’s child abuse and neglect Central Registry “received the bulk of … the attention as a potential reason why the case is not moot,” the Supreme Court said. “If respondent has been placed on the Central Registry, that would likely have various collateral consequences for her, including for her employment and for her ability to engage in certain school or extracurricular activities, among other things. Nevertheless, no definitive proof was offered to this Court showing that respondent is or is not on the Central Registry. It is possible that respondent was not placed on the Central Registry because she has not ‘committed serious abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, or sexual exploitation of a child, or allowed a child to be exposed to or have contact with methamphetamine production.’ … It is also possible though that respondent was placed on the Central Registry because, while the current statute requires the perpetrator to have committed ‘serious abuse or neglect’ in order to be placed on the Central Registry, the statutes in place at the time of the adjudication required only, inter alia, that there be evidence of child abuse or neglect. The instant case arguably would have involved child neglect because the adjudication was under MCL 712A.2(b)(1).”

Further, even if the respondent is on the Central Registry, “she has an avenue to be expunged from it …,” the justices wrote. “If the record on the Central Registry were, in fact, expunged, likely no collateral consequences would result from respondent’s placement on the Central Registry, and the case might well be moot. But there remains a question whether only the existence of a possible avenue for expungement renders the case moot.”

In addition, “there were several other arguments raised as to other possible collateral consequences respondent has suffered as a result of the adjudication,” the Supreme Court observed. “First, respondent would have been placed at least in the DHHS’s electronic case management system. … It appears that a record there could also cause collateral consequences for respondent. For example, if there were another case involving respondent and her children, Child Protective Services (CPS) could then use that record to score various assessments concerning the child’s risk of harm, and the scores for those assessments would in turn affect the actions CPS would choose to take in relation to the case.”

Second, the respondent “claims that the adjudication has affected her ability to get work in the healthcare field and to have a foster-care placement,” the justice said. “That is possibly true. While DHHS reports are generally deemed ‘confidential and … not subject to the disclosure requirements of the freedom of information act,’ … there are at least 28 statutory exceptions to this general rule, and several of those exceptions are to provide review of foster-care applicants. Courts have also previously recognized that adjudications can affect employment prospects.”

Third, the respondent maintained that, in her divorce proceeding, the trial court “already used the instant adjudication as a reason to grant full custody of JJH’s half-sibling to respondent’s ex-husband,” the Supreme Court said. “It is possible that a court would be able to consider the adjudication in order to determine respondent’s suitability as a guardian. … Such a determination would likely constitute a collateral consequence.”

“In sum,” the high court wrote, “there is a possibility that respondent’s record is on the Central Registry, and if it is, there is a question whether an avenue for expungement is sufficient to nullify any collateral consequences arising from that record. Additionally, there were several other arguments raised as to whether respondent continues to suffer collateral consequences from the adjudication. These claims were neither definitively supported nor refuted with records in our Court. But in any case, our Court is not the most appropriate forum for fact-finding. Rather, the trial court is the better forum to make factual determinations. … Therefore, while retaining jurisdiction, 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. Following the hearing, the circuit judge shall issue a written opinion setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall be forwarded to the Clerk of this Court within 60 days of the date of this order.”