Happy New Year, everyone!  I hope everyone had a fantastic holiday season, and is smoothly settling back into the grind of work.  There will never be a shortage of families that need our attention, that’s for sure.
 
Continuing Judicial Education: We are now officially half-way through our first two-year cycle of the new continuing judicial education requirement.  This would be a good time for everyone to check in and see how they are doing on their requirements. Just a reminder to everyone that every two years, we need to have 24 hours of continuing judicial education credits.  18 hours need to be in the areas of Judicial Practice and Related Areas, and the other 6 need to be in the areas of Integrity and Demeanor (Ethics). The best way to stay up-to-date on your status is to regularly log into your CE Broker account. Everyone should have received an email last January, or shortly after their  start date if they were hired later in  the year, prompting them to set up their CE Broker account. If anyone has NOT received such an email or otherwise set up their account, please let me know and I will put you in touch with resources to help you get set up. If anyone is still short on credits in either area, you have two fantastic resources that should help you reach your requirements. First and foremost, thanks to the very hard work of Kate Weaver and Sahera Housey, RAM is one of the approved providers of CJE training. Everyone should make every effort to plan on attending our annual conference in May (this year we will be in Midland, MI), where you will not only network with your fellow referees from across the state, but you will also earn credits towards your CJE requirements. Second, MJI offers monthly webinars specifically for CJE training. Not all webinars are directly on-point with the work that we do, but all count towards your CJE requirements.

In a landmark move, Michigan has overhauled its surrogacy laws by repealing the restrictive Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988. The new Michigan Family Protection Act, signed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer on April 1, 2024, brings Michigan in line with modern surrogacy practices.  The new law provides much-needed clarity, protections, and inclusivity for families and surrogates alike.

The Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988 positioned Michigan as one of few remaining states in the nation to criminalize surrogacy contracts. The Surrogate Parenting Act of 1988 declared surrogacy agreements "void and unenforceable." Further, it made it a felony to arrange paid surrogacy contracts, with penalties including fines up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to five years. It lacked clear provisions for parentage rights, forcing biological parents to undergo lengthy adoption processes to gain legal recognition of their child.

The law was rooted in controversies surrounding surrogacy in the 1980s, such as the infamous "Baby M" case, where a surrogate in New Jersey, who agreed to be artificially inseminated changed her mind about giving up the minor child.  This led to lengthy court matters that escalated to the Supreme Court. As assisted reproductive technologies evolved, the outdated legislation posed significant hurdles for families and surrogates navigating the surrogacy process in Michigan.

Ethics Committee, Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland)- We spent a lot of time at our last meeting discussing the Proposed Amendment of Canon 3, “A Judge should perform the duties of office impartially and diligently” whereby the proposed addition talks about requiring Judges to make “reasonable efforts…to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants to be fairly heard” and what that really means in day-to-day life for Judges/Referees.  The ethics committee finds the proposed amendment to be pretty vague and so a subcommittee has been created to present a letter to the Board of Commissioners so that we can provide our comments prior to the vote.

Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee, Referee Lisa Harris and Referee Holly Spoelman (Muskegon) – update from Referee Spoelman -     We are going to continue providing JJ trainings into 2025.  The SCAO newsletter formerly known as “Monthly Newsletter” is now going to be known as “Juvenile Court Connection Monthly Newsletter”.  The newsletter will contain Juvenile updates, resources, training opportunities and funding opportunities. The CWJJS website contains the recordings of previous Juvenile Justice webinars. The group reviewed the evaluation results from the last two trainings that were held in 2024.  Both trainings were well received and considered beneficial by the attendees.  The group is continuing to identify and prioritize trainings for 2025. We will be meeting quarterly. Our next meeting is in April 2025.

Custody
 
Kelly v. Sholander, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 1, 2024 (Docket No. 367943), Marquette County
 
Mother and Father were awarded joint legal custody of their minor children. Mother sought to change the children’s domicile to Atlantic Mine, Michigan, where her fiancé (now husband) resided. The trial court conducted a brief hearing during which it only considered Mother’s evidence and denied the request, citing the contentious relationship between the parties.
 
“[T]he 100-mile rule limitation imposed by MCL 722.31(1) refers to ‘radial’ or straight-line miles, rather than ‘road’ or driving miles.” Bowers v VanderMeulen-Bowers, 278 Mich App 287, 294; 750 NW2d 597 (2008). During the hearing, Mother testified that Atlantic Mine was approximately 115 miles from Marquette by road. In her appellate brief, she stated that the straight-line distance was approximately 66 miles. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the “100-mile rule” under MCL 722.31(1) was triggered in this case.
 
If a proposed move implicates the 100-mile rule of MCL 722.31(1), a trial court deciding whether to allow the move must consider the factors set forth in MCL 722.31(4): 
 
(a) Whether the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent.
 
(b) The degree to which each parent has complied with, and utilized his or her time under, a court order governing parenting time with the child, and whether the parent’s plan to change the child’s legal residence is inspired by that parent’s desire to defeat or frustrate the parenting time schedule.
 
(c) The degree to which the court is satisfied that, if the court permits the legal residence change, it is possible to order a modification of the parenting time schedule and other arrangements governing the child’s schedule in a manner that can provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering the parental relationship between the child and each parent; and whether each parent is likely to comply with the modification.
 
(d) The extent to which the parent opposing the legal residence change is motivated by a desire to secure a financial advantage with respect to a support obligation.
 
(e) Domestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed against or witnessed by the child.
 
Regarding Factor (a), the Court of Appeals found that the trial court misapplied this factor by overemphasizing the issues in the parties’ relationship and the strain the increased distance would cause.
 
The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

DELINQUENCY
 
UNPUBLISHED
 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v BS, Respondent-Appellant, (January 23, 2025), No. 370879, Midland Circuit Court Family Division, LC No. 23-005515-DL
 
Respondent, a juvenile, appeals by right the trial court’s dispositional order committing her to an open-ended term of detention following her violation of probation on an underlying offense of illegal entry, MCL 750.115(1).
 
This case arises from an incident in which respondent illegally entered the home of her neighbor, i.e., entered without permission, and took some property belonging to the owner. Respondent was apprehended shortly after. At her adjudication, she admitted to the offense; at the dispositional hearing, the court ordered that the respondent serve a nine-month term of probation. Shortly after starting probation, respondent left her home, did not return, and absconded from probation. Respondent maintained contact with some third parties, including her sister, but failed to contact her probation officer. Respondent finally returned 11 or 12 days before her next scheduled dispositional review. In total, the respondent absconded from probation for approximately seven months.
 
After a violation of probation hearing where the prosecutor argued that juvenile detention was the least restrictive environment available to protect society and to meet the respondent’s needs considering her behavior and defense counsel agreeing to the prosecutor’s recommendation, the court ordered an open-ended term of probation.
 
MCR 3.902(B) instructs the court to “ensure that each minor coming within the jurisdiction of the court shall . . . receive the care, guidance, and control, preferably in the minor’s own home, that is conducive to the minor’s welfare and the best interests of the public” in a delinquency proceeding. If a trial court finds that a juvenile has violated the terms of the juvenile’s probation, it “may modify the existing order of probation or order any disposition available under MCL 712A.18 or MCL 712A.18a.” MCR 3.944(E)(1). The court may enter a dispositional order that is “appropriate for the welfare of the juvenile and society in view of the facts proven and ascertained,” but it must order that the juvenile remain with their parent if doing so would not “cause a substantial risk of harm to the juvenile or society.” MCL 712A.18(1). The dispositional orders listed under MCL 712A.18 include commitment to a public institution. MCL 712A.18(1)(e). “The court has broad authority in effectuating dispositional orders once a child is within its jurisdiction.” In re Sanders, 495 Mich 394, 406; 852 NW2d 524 (2014). This Court affords dispositional orders “considerable deference on appellate review.” Id. “In making second and subsequent dispositions in delinquency cases, the court must consider imposing increasingly severe sanctions, which may include . . . ordering a juvenile who has been residing at home into an out-of-home placement.” MCR 3.943(E)(2).
 
The court agreed with the trial court that respondent’s act of absconding indicated that she posed a substantial risk to herself and the community. Furthermore, placement in a secure facility was necessary because there was no appropriate less restrictive placement available, considering the best interests of the respondent, because her parent was unable to provide the care, guidance, and control that would have been conducive to respondent’s welfare as evidenced by that fact that her whereabouts were unknown for approximately seven months.
 
Affirmed.

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 referred to the Committee on Judiciary, Civil Rights, and Public Safety on February 12, 2025, no action since.

Juvenile/Abuse & Neglect
SENATE BILL 18 FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION SERVICES ACT
This bill would amend the Foster Care and Adoption Services Act (MCL 722.951 to MCL 722.960) to require the Department of Health and Human Services to screen a child placed in foster care for eligibility for state and federal benefits within 90 days after placement and apply for any eligible benefits. The amendment also prohibits DHHS (with some exceptions)  from using those benefits to reimburse the Department for services provided and requires the Department to conserve any benefits and report on the status of benefits to the child or GAL.

Status: This bill was referred to the Committee on Housing and Human Services on January 22, 2025, no action since.

SENATE BILL 24 JUVENILE DIVERSION ACT
This bill would amend the Juvenile Diversion Act to allow an individual or organization to submit a research request for a juvenile record to the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) or an individual court and prescribe the conditions for the use and release of such information. The released data would be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Additionally, the SCAO and each court, as applicable, would have to maintain certain records about the request and the released data. The bill would allow the SCAO to charge the researcher to cover costs incurred for processing the request.

Status: This bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary, Civil Rights, and Public Safety and a report was issued by the committee on February 11, 2025.

All of the above legislation can be accessed at: https://www.legislature.mi.gov.

For the spring newsletter, we are pleased to introduce RAM’s newest member and the new Grand Traverse, Leelanau, and Antrim County Referee: Jennifer R. Gray.
Jennifer was born and raised in Traverse City. She attended Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where she graduated in 2004. Mrs. Gray earned her Bachelor of Science in Criminology and Psychology from the University of Tampa in 1999.

Throughout her career, Mrs. Gray has worked extensively with juveniles and families. She began her professional journey as a juvenile probation officer with the 19th Circuit Court (Manistee/Benzie Counties). What many people might not know is that she also worked for a local Girl Scout Council, teaching rock climbing and high ropes courses, before pursuing law school.

Ms. Gray is married and has two stepchildren, as well as a cat named Hero. If given the chance to trade places with anyone for a day, she would choose Hero because she admires the cat's seemingly stress-free life.

Ms. Gray’s proudest moments as a lawyer include achieving the discharge of her student loans after 10 years of public service and being appointed as a Referee. Her dedication to public service has also brought her heartfelt recognition in the form of thank-you letters she received as a Legal Services attorney, which she considers the most meaningful reminders of why she chose this career path.

Her advice to anyone considering law school is simple: “Do it! It is a great experience that will teach you invaluable lessons you’ll use throughout life, even if you don’t end up practicing law.” To her 16-year-old self, she would say: “You’re going to be A-OK, sister. Put your patience pants on and stop driving so fast.” It’s no surprise that her personal motto is: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Ms. Gray’s success as an attorney may partially be due to the best advice she’s ever received: “Don’t let the bastards get you down. Show up, pay attention, tell the truth, and don’t get too attached to the outcome.”

KUDOS to . . .

Congratulations to the following Referees who were successful in their November 2024 elections: 

• Judge Mary Hood, Genesee County Circuit Court, 7th Circuit, Family Division.  Judge Hood served as a Juvenile Referee in Genesee County from 2002 until taking the bench in January 2025. 
• Judge Adrienne Scruggs, Wayne County Circuit Court, 3rd Circuit, Family Division – Juvenile.  Judge Scruggs began serving Michigan families as a Friend of the Court Attorney in Wayne County.  In October 2021 she accepted a position as a Domestic Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court where she served until taking the bench in January 2025.