Action seeking compensation for services rendered as a court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) pursuant to MCR 2.201(E)(1)(c); MCR 3.916(D); Distinguishing between a “guardian” and a GAL for wards of the state; MCL 400.203(1); MCL 712A.18; MCR 2.201(E); People ex rel Sheahan v. Wayne Circuit Judge; Responsibility for the GAL’s costs; MCL 600.2415; MCR 2.201(E)(3)(a); The trial court’s ability to tax costs; MCR 2.625(F)(1) & (2); Whether the Department of Human Services (DHS) had notice; Access to records; MCR 8.119(D)(1)(c) & (H); Superintendent of the Michigan Children’s Institute

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the appellant-GAL was not entitled to payment for his services and that defendant-DHS was not responsible for payment. Appellant was the attorney and GAL for defendant-Hand, a 13-year-old foster child and ward of the state who was sued by the family of a 5-year-old child he molested. He sought compensation for his services, but the trial court denied his claim. On appeal, the court agreed with appellant that he was entitled to compensation for the services he rendered as GAL and that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the DHS was not required to pay for his costs and expenses. It noted that he “was not responsible for the costs of the case since MCL 600.2415 and MCR 2.201(E)(1)(c) clarify that a” GAL is not responsible for the costs of the action, and since MCR 2.201(E)(3)(a) indicates that a GAL “will receive an award for his costs and expenses,” which further demonstrates that he “was not responsible for his own costs and expenses.” It also found that appellant was entitled to receive attorney fees as part of the costs and expenses he incurred as GAL. It then held that DHS was responsible for paying appellant’s costs and expenses since Hand was a ward of the state. “[T]he fact that DHS is responsible for payment of [appellant’s] expenses and costs is apparent from the fact that DHS was accountable for” Hand’s care, and the fact that “the state of Michigan, DHS, and DHS of Wexford-Missaukee Counties were dismissed from the case does not negate the fact that Hand was a ward of the state, and DHS remained responsible for Hand’s care.” Further, “[a]lthough [appellant] was appointed in a civil case, rather than in a child-protective or delinquency proceeding, the situation is comparable since Hand was a ward of the state and required a” GAL in order for the case to proceed, and “the fact that the Superintendent was Hand’s guardian does not negate the fact that” appellant acted as GAL. The court next found that the trial court abused its discretion when it reasoned that appellant delayed filing his motion for fees and costs, noting that “the time limit outlined in MCR 2.625(F)” did not bar his request, and there are “no other applicable time limits” on a GAL’s request for attorney fees and costs. Finally, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that DHS must receive notice of the appointment of a GAL, noting it failed to cite authority for this proposition. “DHS’s argument that it did not have notice of [appellant’s] appointment" was unpersuasive under the circumstances. Reversed and remanded.