The family division’s jurisdiction; Effect of respondent’s age when the petition was filed; MCL 712A.3 & 5; People v Schneider; Jurisdiction for the limited purpose of conducting a waiver hearing; MCL 712A.4

In this case in which the 24-year-old respondent was charged for acts allegedly committed when he was 15 or 16, the court held that the family division erred in ruling petitioner had to file the case in the circuit court for that court to then transfer it “to the family division for a waiver hearing, and by not authorizing the petition and dismissing the case without” conducting a waiver hearing. In Schneider, the court decided “whether the court of adult criminal jurisdiction or the juvenile division of the probate court has jurisdiction over a person who allegedly commits a crime” before turning 17 and who turns 18 before criminal proceedings are began. It held in Schneider that “where a case is transferred to the probate court pursuant to MCL 712A.3[], the probate court shall have jurisdiction without regard to the defendant’s age at the time of transfer. However, such jurisdiction shall be for the limited purpose of holding a waiver hearing pursuant to MCL 712A.4.” While this 1982 case was not binding, the court found its reasoning sound. The case law and statutes governing “jurisdiction over an individual who is charged for acts they committed as a juvenile after they reach the age of 18 do not directly address the circumstances” here. The statutory procedures “contemplate scenarios in which a criminal charge has already been filed against a person in the circuit court and it is thereafter determined that the person committed the offense when he was under the age of 17.” Here, petitioner knew when it filed the petition that “respondent was under the age of 17 when he committed the alleged offense, and, as such, filed the petition in the family division.” Without conducting a hearing, the referee found that he should have been charged “as an adult in the circuit court and, after the circuit court determined that respondent was under the age of 17 when the offense” allegedly occurred, it “would transfer the case to the family division for a waiver hearing.” But the court noted that it had not and did “not take issue with a petitioner filing a petition in the family division against a person has reached the age of 18 regarding acts he committed as a juvenile where it is known that the person was a juvenile when he committed the acts before the petition was filed.” Reversed and remanded.