Now Accepting New Clients!

Michigan Children's Institute superintendent's denial of grandmother's petition to adopt upheld

The court held that the trial court applied the proper standard of review and did not err by upholding the MCI superintendent's decision to deny the appellant-grandmother's request for consent to adopt. In Docket No. 309161, the trial court denied her petition for a juvenile guardianship of the four children. On appeal, the court previously reversed and remanded. In Docket No. 312691, the trial court upheld the MCI superintendent's denial of appellant's request for consent to adopt the children. On appeal, the court held that the decision was moot considering the decision as to guardianship. The Supreme Court reversed the court's guardianship ruling and reinstated the trial court's order denying the request. It also remanded the adoption issue. On remand, the court held that "the MCI superintendent did not reach his decision by whim or caprice, nor was his determination freakish, whimsical, or humorsome. The superintendent's grounds for denying [her] request for consent to adopt, and the trial court's reasoning for upholding the superintendent's decision, were sound and valid. There was not a complete absence of any good reason to withhold consent." The court also rejected her argument that BCS and the MCI superintendent "were biased and were inflexibly determined to deny her petition to adopt the children, thereby acting in a manner that violated her constitutional right to due process." It found there was "an absolute dearth of evidence in the record suggesting that BCS considered in any way its financial position" when making its recommendations, and that appellant's "assertion that the superintendent showed improper favoritism to the foster parents is without foundation in the record." It also rejected her claim that the MCI superintendent and BCS violated her "constitutional right to fair and just treatment by conducting only a limited investigation, by making decisions on incomplete and inaccurate information," and by failing to contact her, finding that "MCL 722.954a simply has no relevance to the post-termination adoption proceedings." Finally, it rejected her argument that the trial court erred in partially denying her motion to compel discovery, "thereby rubber-stamping the superintendent's decision without having access to complete and accurate information about the children's individual circumstances." It held that her argument was "ultimately based on speculation and seeks to engage in a fishing expedition." There was "no indication that there exist facts or information that would circumvent or undermine the trial court's ruling or that would constitute clear and convincing evidence that the MCI superintendent's decision was arbitrary and capricious." Affirmed.

Antenuptial agreement held to be valid and enforceable

The court held that the parties' antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable, concluding that to invalidate it on the basis of one party's fault would contravene the agreement's clear and unambiguous language, and that as a matter of law, the...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000