Domestic Diversions

The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing RYAN v RYAN (January 15, 2004, Case No. 240695). The decision is noteworthy for the breadth of issues covered and the comments regarding second-guessing a fit parent’s decisions.

Kelly writes (excerpt):
***
II. Mootness
“A case is moot when it presents only abstract questions of law that do not rest upon
existing facts or rights.” B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d
117 (1998). Generally, this Court need not reach moot issues or declare legal principles that
have no practical effect on the case “unless the issue is one of public significance that is likely to
recur, yet evade judicial review.” Federated Publications, Inc v Lansing, 467 Mich 98, 112; 649
NW2d 383 (2002). Because this case was dismissed and plaintiff has since reached the age of
majority, the issues presented on appeal no longer rest upon existing facts or rights. But we
address the issues nonetheless because we find them of public significance likely to recur, yet
evade judicial review.
***
III. “Divorce” from Parents
The trial court’s September 19, 2000, ex-parte order and the order appointing the
guardian ad litem, entered pursuant to plaintiff’s complaint for divorce8 are void because the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an action for “divorce from parents,” a claim
unrecognized in Michigan.
***
IV. Emancipation Petition
The trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition of plaintiff’s
emancipation petition because it was defective on its face and lacked factual support. Although
the trial court did not deny defendants’ motion, but instead granted Benedict’s motion to dismiss
without prejudice, we conclude that the trial court should have granted defendants’ motion for
summary disposition and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
***
V. Abuse and Neglect
Defendants’ also argue that the trial court improperly exercised its jurisdiction by
ordering plaintiff into temporary placement. We agree. Not only did the trial court err in failing
to conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if probable cause existed to authorize the petition,
MCR 5.965, it denied defendants the right to a trial on the allegations in the petition, MCR
5.972.
***
VI. Conclusion
We are deeply troubled that this matter was allowed to proceed in the trial court for as
long as and in the manner in which it did. Based on improperly filed documents filed by an
attorney without authority to act on plaintiff’s behalf, the trial court, in a fundamental
misunderstanding or disregard of its proper role, stripped defendants of their basic constitutional
rights to manage and care for their child without state interference. All of the orders entered
completely ignored that, absent a showing of parental unfitness, the state may not interfere with
an intact family.
We reverse and remand this case to the trial court with the direction to enter an order of
dismissal with prejudice in favor of defendants and vacate all previous orders. We do not retain
jurisdiction.