I want to start my first President’s Corner by telling you all what an honor it is to be President of this organization, and also by thanking Kate Weaver for all that she did during her time as President. I joined the RAM board in 2017, two years after becoming a referee, and have had nothing but increasing admiration for all of the dedication and hard work that our members put into keeping our group at the forefront of the legal community. We have members participating in countless legal associations, organizations, workgroups, and committees so that our profession has a presence, as well as a voice, in legal issues being addressed that affect the families with whom we work. As President, one of the things I hope to continue is helping our members find ways to become and stay active, not only within our organization, but in other legal capacities across the state. Over time, there will be various opportunities that come up, and I urge everyone that has any interest to volunteer for those opportunities. By doing so, it will not only provide valuable experience to you as individuals, but also continue to ensure that our roles as referees in the juvenile and domestic arenas continue to have an impact.
 
Now, just a little bit about me…I have been a domestic referee in Ingham County since 2015. Prior to that I was an investigator/conciliator, also in Ingham County, for just over two years. Before entering the public sector, I worked as a private attorney for almost nine years at a well-respected law firm in Lansing, Michigan, doing almost exclusively domestic relations work. I am originally from Ann Arbor, and yes….my blood runs blue!!  I graduated from the University of Michigan for both undergrad and law school. I am the immensely proud mom of a 24-year old son, Colin. He also graduated from the University of Michigan, and is now living in Chicago doing amazing things.
 
I am very excited to serve as President of RAM. I want to maintain very open communication with all members. If you ever have concerns, questions, comments…anything at all…please do not hesitate to reach out. If I can’t answer any particular question, I will do my best to seek out the resource that can.
 
Finally, I want to thank Kate Weaver and Sahara Housey for all of the work they did for our 2024 annual conference on Mackinac Island this past May.  It was truly spectacular.  I hope ALL members will consider joining us next year for the annual conference, which will be held in Midland, Michigan. RAM has been named an approved provider for the new continuing judicial education requirement. By attending the annual conference, you will not only be networking with your fellow referees from across the state, but you will be earning credits towards your CJE obligation.  And I assure you, a great time will be had by all!
 
Have a great fall, everyone!

OCTOBER 1 IS HERE, which means Michigan Justice for Kids and Communities - Juvenile Justice reform statutes and rules are in effect. The juvenile Justice Partnership Committee has worked closely with SCAO and DHHS to implement the provisions of Michigan’s Juvenile Justice Reforms. 

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM KEY PROVISIONS:

• Eliminate most non-restitution fees and costs associated with juvenile justice system involvement, including costs of care, services, and court-appointed representation. The legislation also removes the parent or guardian burden to pay for costs associated with diversion services and ensures that youth are no longer placed outside of their home solely for nonpayment or refusal to perform community services.
  • Most counties are no longer collecting fees.

 

SBM Judicial Ethics Committee - Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland)
In the spring, we initiated a Judge training for MJI on Artificial Intelligence and on the JI-155 Artificial Intelligence ethics opinion.  We presented in many counties across the state (I was one of the presenters at the Plymouth training along with Judge Savin).  Prior to that we were working on creating a Judicial Campaign Guidebook with resources and FAQs related to campaigning and following the Cannons.  There were still some revisions that needed to be worked out, so it’s still a work in progress. We are presently discussing the Proposed Amendments to MCJC 4 and 6, which proposes expanded financial disclosure requirements by Judicial Officers.  We are working to advise the Board on whether we support, reject or have any proposed amendments to suggest for consideration. 

SCAO Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee - Referee Lisa Harris (Oakland) and Referee Holly Spoelman (Muskegon) - update from Referee Spoelman  
The committee has been meeting monthly beginning in November, 2023. The committee is comprised of representatives from various agencies, courts and community groups.  Each of the members also participates in one or more workgroups and subgroups.  The workgroups are Training, Data & Quality Assurance, and Policy & Procedure.  The subgroups are Screening & Assessment Tools, Diversion and Consent, and Juvenile Probation and Case Management Standards.  I have been serving on the Training workgroup. The workgroup has been planning and conducting monthly webinars.  The work group reviews and discusses he evaluations and comments the month following each webinar. The recorded webinars as well as “Training in a Minute” videos (prerecorded power points with audio can be accessed on the Child Welfare Juvenile Justice website.  Several of the workgroups and subgroups have completed their initial directives/deliverables and are winding down.  The Training workgroup will continue meeting and planning webinars that will be held throughout the upcoming year. The Training group already has a substantial list of potential training topics. However, if any RAM members have any training topics they would like the Training workgroup to consider, I will be happy to bring those requests to the next Training workgroup meeting.

Custody
 
Carneiro v. Carneiro, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 18, 2024 (Docket No. 366974, 367645, 368672). Ingham County
 
After the parties were married in Brazil, they relocated to Michigan where Father studied at Michigan State.  Father’s studies were paid for by the Brazilian government with the understanding that he would return to Brazil to work.  Father’s failure to return would result in repayments back to the Brazilian government.  Father filed for divorce after discovering Mother was having an affair.  After the divorce action was filed, the parties had exercised equal parenting time with the minor child except during the periods where Mother accused Father of abuse which resulted in him not having parenting time with the child.   Father argued that Mother falsified claims of domestic violence in order to remain in the United States under a program which permitted survivors of domestic violence to remain in the United States.  The trial court found that the minor child had an established custodial environment with both Mother and Father, awarded the parties joint legal custody, and found that the minor child would attend school in Brazil with Mother having substantial parenting time.   
 
On appeal, Mother first contends that the minor child had an established custodial environment with her - despite the fact that the trial court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard because of Father’s request to change the child’s domicile.  Mother contended that a finding that the child had an established custodial environment with her alone would have changed the trial court’s findings under the best interest factors, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument as having no basis in the law.  

DELINQUENCY
 
NONE
 
CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
 
In re O. O. CLAUDIO-PEREZ, Minor, (June 7, 2024), SC: 165711 COA: 360356, Kalamazoo Circuit Court, Family Division, 18-000181-NA
 
Issues:
Termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j), failure to make reasonable efforts toward reunification under MCL 712A.19a(2), In re Hicks, 500 Mich 79, 85 (2017).  What constitutes plain error: In re Utrera, 281 Mich App 1, 8-9 (2008), People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 (1999), In re Pederson, 331 Mich App 445, 463 (2020), People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1, 10 (2018)(“seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings . . . .”).
 
Summary:
In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the Kalamazoo Circuit Court for further proceedings.  Respondent-mother applied for leave to appeal the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her minor child, OOCP, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (j).
 
DHHS “has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify a family before seeking termination of parental rights.” In re Hicks, 500 Mich 79, 85 (2017), citing MCL 712A.18f(3)(b) and (c); MCL 712A.19a(2). DHHS failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. DHHS determined that mother’s lack of medical knowledge was an obstacle to reunification with her medically fragile child.  The Department failed to provide the mother with any training or resources to overcome this obstacle. The trial court’s holding that DHHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification constitutes plain error because DHHS has an affirmative duty to make reasonable efforts to address the barriers to reunification.