Background
HPD’s maternal grandparents obtained a full guardianship after his mother experienced serious mental-health problems and was hospitalized shortly after his birth. When the parents later sought termination, the probate court continued the guardianship under a court-structured reunification plan requiring, among other things, mental-health treatment and documentation, resolution of the father’s criminal matters, and his completion of domestic-violence programming.
After several review hearings, the probate court found that the parents had not substantially complied with the plan. Its concerns included the father’s probation violations, termination from a domestic-violence program, failure to provide probation reports or authorize access to them, and continuing behavioral problems, as well as insufficient evidence that the mother remained stable and compliant with mental-health treatment. The court continued the guardianship, stating only that doing so was in HPD’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals upheld the probate court’s factual determination that the parents had failed to substantially comply with several requirements of the court-structured plan. The record supported findings concerning the father’s probation and treatment failures and the lack of adequate proof regarding the mother’s mental-health stability.
But noncompliance alone did not supply the findings required by MCL 700.5209(2)(c). Before continuing the guardianship under that provision, the probate court had to determine whether the parents’ failure to provide age-appropriate parental care, love, guidance, and attention had substantially disrupted the parent-child relationship, and whether clear and convincing evidence showed continuation served HPD’s best interests after consideration of the factors in MCL 700.5101(a). Because the probate court made no reviewable findings on those requirements, the Court of Appeals vacated the continuation order and remanded for a new hearing based on up-to-date information.
Key Takeaways
- A finding that parents failed to substantially comply with a guardianship reunification plan does not, by itself, justify continuing the guardianship under MCL 700.5209(2)(c).
- The probate court must make findings on substantial disruption of the parent-child relationship and each applicable statutory best-interest factor.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the continuation order but did not hold that the guardianship must be terminated; the probate court must decide the issue anew on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the procedural protections attached to parents’ fundamental right to direct the care and custody of their children. A probate court must connect the evidence to every statutory requirement rather than rely on a conclusory best-interests determination.
For guardianship practitioners, the opinion underscores the need to build a factor-by-factor record and obtain express findings sufficient for appellate review, using current information at the remand hearing.