Background
Petitioner, a nonrelative who had cared for OLH for several years, sought appointment as the child’s guardian after a falling out with OLH’s biological parents. Petitioner asserted that the parents had effectively given OLH to her and had not resumed the child’s care, custody, or control. The parents maintained that petitioner’s assistance was temporary while they became financially stable and that they never intended to surrender OLH permanently.
After evidentiary hearings and a Department of Health and Human Services investigation, the Oceana Probate Court found that the parties had collaboratively cared for OLH and that the parents had not intended for OLH to remain with petitioner after they left her property. The court denied the petition because petitioner had not established a statutory basis for guardianship by a preponderance of the evidence. It alternatively found that petitioner had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that guardianship was in OLH’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Under MCL 700.5204(2)(b), the relevant question was whether the parents permitted OLH to reside with petitioner when the guardianship issue arose. The parents’ police report seeking OLH’s return after leaving petitioner’s property was strong evidence that their permission was no longer ongoing when petitioner filed her petition. Any earlier permission for OLH to live with petitioner therefore did not satisfy the statute.
The court deferred to the probate court’s credibility determinations and found no clear error in its decision to credit the parents’ account. Because the statutory prerequisites for guardianship were not met, the probate court could not independently award guardianship based on its own assessment of OLH’s best interests.
The court also rejected petitioner’s due-process, court-access, reconsideration, and parenting-time arguments. Service of the order on petitioner’s then-attorney was proper, petitioner had received a full opportunity to litigate her guardianship petition, and reopening the case could not provide parenting time because petitioner, as a nonrelative third party whose temporary guardianship had expired, lacked standing to obtain that relief independently.
Key Takeaways
- A guardianship under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) requires parental permission for the child to reside with another person to be ongoing when the guardianship issue arises.
- Past permission is insufficient when the parents have withdrawn consent and sought the child’s return before the guardianship petition is filed.
- A nonrelative former temporary guardian cannot independently obtain parenting time after the guardianship ends when the parents prohibit contact.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to fit parents in third-party guardianship disputes. A close caregiving relationship, even one lasting years, does not permit a court to impose guardianship unless the petitioner first proves a statutory ground for doing so.
It also underscores that appellate courts give substantial deference to probate courts’ witness-credibility findings, particularly when the parties offer sharply conflicting accounts of whether a child’s placement was temporary or permanent.