Background
LLH entered the juvenile court system after twice being found in possession of stolen vehicles in October 2022. He pleaded to allegations involving possession of a stolen vehicle, burglar tools, and malicious destruction of property and was placed on in-home probation. His probation conditions included attending school, avoiding negative police contact, and refraining from marijuana and other substances.
After repeatedly testing positive for marijuana, LLH was placed in the Supervised Treatment for Alcohol and Narcotic Dependency program. He continued to have compliance problems and additional police contacts, including another stolen-vehicle matter and a pending Macomb County case. In February 2025, LLH admitted violating probation by testing positive for marijuana and thereby failing to comply with the program’s rules. The trial court placed him in juvenile detention with a $100,000 bond pending a dispositional hearing and removed him from the treatment program.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that MCL 712A.15(3) and MCR 3.907(D) made use and consideration of a detention screening tool a mandatory prerequisite to placing LLH in secure detention pending a hearing. Because the record did not indicate that the trial court used or considered such a tool, the trial court plainly erred.
The panel nevertheless affirmed because LLH did not establish that the unpreserved error affected his substantial rights. Neither party explained what the screening tool entailed or what its application might have shown, leaving the court unable to find that the omission affected the outcome. The trial court’s detailed explanation also demonstrated that its detention decision was informed and carefully considered.
The court rejected LLH’s remaining arguments because MCL 712A.18(1) and MCR 3.943(E)(2) govern dispositional orders, while the challenged adjudication order detained him only pending disposition under MCL 712A.15(1). Assuming the $100,000 bond was unauthorized, any error was harmless because the alternative would have been detention without bond.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan juvenile court must use and consider a detention screening tool before placing a juvenile in a secure facility pending a hearing.
- Failure to use the mandatory tool is plain error, but an appellant raising the issue for the first time on appeal must show that the omission affected the proceeding’s outcome.
- Requirements governing juvenile dispositional orders do not necessarily apply to an adjudication order imposing temporary detention pending disposition.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan’s recently enacted detention-screening requirement is mandatory, not discretionary. Juvenile courts should create a clear record that a new screening tool was used and considered before each secure placement and that its results were timely shared with the parties.
At the same time, the opinion illustrates the difficulty of obtaining relief under plain-error review. Even when a trial court violates a mandatory procedural safeguard, the appellant must develop a record and argument showing a reasonable effect on the detention decision.