The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing In re Hudson, (Case No. 246373; June 24, 2004). The 2-1 panel held that stepfather James A. Mentor did not qualify as a “custodian” under MCL 712A.18(2), so it required him to reimburse the County of Van Buren for the cost of the child’s care.
Judge O’Connell writes (excerpt):
When a trial court commits a juvenile to agency care outside the juvenile’s home, MCL 712A.18(2) requires that the cost of care be reimbursed “by the juvenile, parent, guardian, or custodian . . . .” This statute, as well as MCL 712A.6, confers jurisdiction on the court to obtain reimbursement from certain adults in the child’s life regardless of their culpability for causing the court to remove the child. While the Legislature does not define “custodian” in the probate code, it narrowly defines the term for purposes of the Michigan uniform transfer to minors act, MCL 554.521, et seq. Under that statutory scheme, one does not become a “custodian” without acquiring, under clearly articulated circumstances, legal possession of a minor’s property which
is then held in trust for the child. Accepting the property means accepting all the attendant fiduciary obligations that normally attach to such a position of responsibility. MCL 554.523. “Custodian,” therefore, has a specialized meaning in the law, and we will not ignore that meaning without a sound basis to believe the Legislature intended something different. The trial court did not consider the impact of this definition, but we find that it directly relates to the monetary issue presented, especially when the statute holds the juvenile, as well as the juvenile’s parents and guardians, responsible for reimbursement. Because respondent was not even remotely a “custodian” in the financial sense, he was not responsible for reimbursing petitioner.
We note, however, that we would reach the same conclusion even if we found that “custodian” referred to custody of the child rather than custody of the child’s property. As illustrated by the definition in MCL 554.523, incumbent in the term “custodian” is a special legal responsibility. If applied directly to the child, the designation inherently includes the legal duty to provide financial, emotional, and physical care and protection to the child. Cf. MCL 769.1(7). We find no basis in our jurisprudence to assign such a duty to stepparents across the board. We find the trial court’s application of the presumed duty especially incongruous in this case, where, despite the death of the child’s father, respondent refrained from adopting her, participated minimally in her upbringing, and did not marry the child’s mother until the child was ten years old. Further, the “child” in this case was nearly sixteen years old when the petition for her removal from the home was filed. Under these circumstances, the trial court improperly designated respondent the child’s “custodian”. Respondent was not required, on that ground, to reimburse petitioner.