PRESIDENT’S CORNER
BY JANET MENDEZ (INGHAM)
 
Hello RAM. Happy fall to you all. We are well into football season, pumpkin season and leaves-changing-color season. I hope you all had a fantastic summer and are settling in and getting ready for our lovely upcoming Michigan winter. I just have a few updates to share.
 
Continuing Judicial Education: We are almost through with the first two-year cycle of our continuing judicial education requirement. Everyone should have received an email from the Michigan Continuing Judicial Education Board (I received mine on September 30), informing you of your status. If you still need credit hours before the end of the year, I encourage you to visit the MJI website. They have plenty of recorded webinars available to view, with a wide-variety of topics. In other CJE news, the applicable rules were modified in July 2025. Two changes to note: 1) while the total hours continue to be 24 every two years, the category distribution was adjusted to consist of four hours in integrity and demeanor (ethics) and twenty hours in judicial practice and related areas (formerly six and eighteen respectively), and 2) at least eight CJE hours must come from MJI courses (formerly at least one-half).
 
Getting Involved: For anyone looking to get more involved, just a reminder that there are many ways and opportunities to make an impact in the legal community and/or get more involved directly with RAM. I want to specifically encourage any members that may be interested in serving on the Family Law Section council. There will likely be an open seat(s) in the near future, and referees are underrepresented on the current council. It is very important that we have a voice at the table when decisions are being made that could impact how we do our jobs, and how we best serve our communities. The council should have adequate representation by all interested groups, including attorneys, the judiciary and quasi-judicial officers. If you have ever considered running for a seat on the council, I strongly encourage you take that next step and help provide a much-needed voice. I know that over the last couple of years, there was a shift in the meeting schedule, with meeting dates at various times, including mid-week evenings. This made joining council difficult for people that had to travel. It is my understanding that moving forward, all meetings will take place on Saturdays and Sundays, which will hopefully alleviate some concerns and make joining a little more feasible for our members. I also want to note that whether you are on the council or not, all Family Law Section members are welcome to attend any and all meetings. If you are ever free on a meeting weekend, and are interested in seeing what the meetings are about and contribute to the discussions, I encourage you to attend.

Ethics Committee, Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland), no updates since last issue.
 
Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee, RAM President Janet Mendez has appointed two new Referees to join this committee including Referee Patrick O’Mera of Oakland County and Katelyn Andrews (f/k/a Katelyn Schaffer) of Ottawa County.  Both are excited for their first meetings.  
 
MI Weighted Caseload Study, Referee Erin Magley (Ottawa): the process continues as the different work groups evaluate the data received. 
 
Commission on Wellness in the Law, Referee Patricia (Patty) Woodruff was appointed to the Michigan Supreme Court’s Commission on Well-Being in the Law in September 2025. Patty serves on the Commission as the RAM Representative. In August, Patty attended the Commission’s quarterly meeting in Lansing. Additionally, Patty serves on the Commission’s Programming Committee and has attended two committee meetings thus far.

Custody
 
Davidson v. Hance, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 20, 2025 (Docket No. 372960), Newaygo County.

The parties, who are the unmarried parents of a child, EH, initially disputed custody after the plaintiff filed for joint physical and legal custody in 2019. They eventually agreed to joint legal custody, with Mother having primary physical custody and Father receiving regular parenting time. However, their relationship remained contentious, especially regarding EH’s ongoing toileting issues, medical care, and schooling decisions. Due to their inability to cooperate, the trial court issued multiple orders to manage medical care, information sharing through Our Family Wizard (OFW), and educational decisions.

In April 2024, Father filed an ex parte motion alleging that Mother was medically neglecting EH by failing to follow court orders and medical recommendations, particularly related to EH’s toileting issues. While the trial court denied Father’s request for temporary full custody, it granted an alternative ex parte order giving Father extended parenting time and sole legal custody, while limiting Mother’s parenting time.

Mother objected to this ex parte order, arguing it was issued without a hearing or proper findings. The trial court referred the matter to a referee and instructed Father to formally move for a custody change. Following a two-day hearing, the referee recommended awarding Father primary physical and sole legal custody, and awarding Mother parenting time under the Friend of the Court schedule. The trial court adopted these recommendations, citing EH’s healthcare needs and the parents’ ongoing inability to effectively coparent. Mother appealed the decision.
Mother first challenged the issuance of the ex parte order, arguing that it modified legal and physical custody without any prior findings. The Court of Appeals ruled that, by granting Father extended parenting time via an ex parte order, the trial court effectively modified Mother's award of primary physical custody. However, the Court of Appeals found this error to be harmless because both the referee and the trial court later made rulings based on the parties’ longstanding inability to agree on medical decisions for the minor child. Additionally, the referee and trial court found that an established custodial environment existed with both parties, and that the circumstances of that environment were not the result of the ex parte order.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. 

CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS
 
Michigan Supreme Court
 
In re D V Lange, Minor, No 166509, Wayne County Circuit Court Family Division, April 14, 2025
 
Adjudication case.  The trial court did not extend jurisdiction over DVL.  DVL suffered from PTSD, ODD, ADHD, and RAD.  While he was hospitalized, the Department looked for an appropriate placement.  The hospital determined he was ready for discharge without a placement having been found.  DVL’s mother refused to pick him up from the hospital, citing concerns for her other children and pets based on DVL’s behaviors.  The Department filed a petition for DVL.  The trial court declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding no neglectful conduct by mother due to DVL’s mental health issues and that mother sought treatment for him.
 
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the trial court was reversed.  The Court of Appeals determined that jurisdiction was appropriate under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) and (2).  DVL’s mother refused to pick him up from the hospital or provide him with outpatient treatment for his mental health, which provided bases for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
 
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court held that “’able to do so’ as used [in] MCL 712A.2(b)(1) means that a parent must have ‘sufficient power, skill, or resources’ to provide necessary care or necessary support.”  The Supreme Court also held that “’negligent’ for purposes of MCL 722.602(1)(d) [as part of MCL 712A.2(b)(2)] as failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances.”  Because DVL’s mother sought treatment for him, which was unsuccessful, and he was a danger to her other children, her actions in not picking him up from the hospital did not provide jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2(b)(1) or (2). 
 
In re Barber/Espinoza, Minors, No 167745, Lenawee County Circuit Court Family Division, July 31, 2025
 
Aggravated circumstances and an adjudication case.  Two children were involved.  Mother was alleged to have allowed men to sexually abuse CB, including once in exchange for drugs.  The trial court found jurisdiction for adjudication under MCL 712A.2b(1) and (2) and terminated parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (ii), and 19b(3)(j).  The trial court made a judicial determination of aggravated circumstances under MCL 722.638(2), because mother was a suspected perpetrator of sexual abuse or placed CB at an unreasonable risk of harm and failed to take reasonable steps to protect her.
 
The Court of Appeals reversed.  Mother was not the perpetrator of the sexual abuse so there were no aggravated circumstances.  Without aggravated circumstances, the Department was required to provide reasonable efforts to reunify the children.  Additional error was made by the trial court not advising mother of her right to appeal the removal.
 
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the termination of mother’s parental rights.  Aggravated circumstances existed because mother facilitated the sexual abuse of her child, even if she did not perpetrate the sexual penetration herself.  Mother also placed her child at an unreasonable risk of harm and failed to take reasonable steps to protect her child by allowing the sexual abuse.  The trial court did err in not advising mother of her right to appeal the removal.  The children were placed with their nonrespondent father and mother’s inability to participate in decisions regarding their care or exercise parenting time constituted a removal.  The error, however, was not outcome determinative.

The Michigan Legislature is now early in the first year of the new two-year session 2025-2026. All bills introduced in the first year carry over into this year. Any bills that do not pass in the second year must be reintroduced in the first year of the next legislative session.

Enacted/Passed Bills

Domestic Relations
None yet this session.

Juvenile/Abuse & Neglect
None yet this session.

In Committee/Other

Domestic Relations
SENATE BILL 82 JUDICIAL PROTECTION ACT
This bill would create a new Act called the Judicial Protection Act, which would permit judges to request from a public body that personally identifying information be removed from public view.

Status: This bill was passed by the Senate on March 19, 2025 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, no action since.

HOUSE BILLS 4215-4217 AMENDMENTS TO THE CHILD CUSTODY ACT AND PARENTING TIME STATUTE TO ADD GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
This package of bills would amend the Child Custody Act, the Parenting Time Statute, and the Grandparenting Time Statute to allow great-grandparents to be awarded custody or seek grandparenting time.

Status: These bills were referred to the Committee on Families and Veterans on March 12, 2025, no action since.

​To read the Court Rules Update, please open the attached .pdf document.

Happy Retirement to Rosanne Hostnik, Wayne County, who retired on October 31, 2025 after 37-years working for the Wayne County Friend of the Court.  Rosanne began her journey at the Wayne County Friend of the Court March 1, 1988 and was appointed to the position of Domestic Relations Referee in 1997.  Rosanne was a mentor to new Referees at the Friend of the Court and treated litigants, attorneys, and co-workers with respect and dignity.   Thank you for your years of service and dedication to Wayne County families.  Enjoy your well-deserved retirement!
 
Kudos to Katelyn Andrews (f/k/a Katelyn Schaffer), Ottawa County, for her appointment to the State Bar of Michigan, Family Law Section Council.  In addition, Katelyn was appointed by RAM as our representative on the Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee.  Even more exciting, kudos to Katelyn for becoming a mom!  Congratulations, Katelyn!!
 
Congratulations to Cheryl Sweeney, Monroe County, for her appointment to the Monroe County Probate Court bench by Governor Whitmer.  Judge Sweeney was previously the Chief Juvenile Court Referee in Monroe County.   Judge Sweeney will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the families of Monroe County that she continues to serve in her new role.

Congratulations to Hon. Jolene Clearwater, Allegan County, on becoming a RAM Honorary Lifetime Member!