Consent to adopt; Withholding of consent by the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI); In re Cotton; MCL 400.209; Whether the Michigan Adoption Code & statutes governing the MCI Superintendent are “void for vagueness”; Protected interest for purposes of due process; MCL 710.24a(1)(a); MCL 722.958a(2)(a)

The court held that the trial court did not commit clear legal error when it determined that the MCI Superintendent’s decision denying petitioners consent to adopt a child (TEM) was not arbitrary and capricious. Also, it rejected their challenge that portions of the Adoption Code and statutes governing the MCI Superintendent are unconstitutional. They sought consent to adopt TEM after serving as foster parents for TEM and a sibling (EM). The MCI Superintendent withheld consent to adopt. The trial court concluded that the Superintendent’s decision “was not arbitrary and capricious and ruled that the Michigan Adoption Code” and statutes governing the MCI Superintendent were not void for vagueness. The court concluded the “trial court applied the correct legal standard. It properly noted that the correctness of the children’s removal and the circumstances surrounding the removal were not at issue; rather, it was whether the MCI Superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.” Contrary to petitioners’ claims, “the trial court did not ignore any specific period of time or refuse to review the nature of the MCI Superintendent’s decision. Petitioners misunderstand the limited scope of the trial court’s review.” The court noted that “Michigan authority is clear that the court is to determine if there is any good reason to support the MCI Superintendent’s decision; if so, the decision must be upheld.” The court agreed with the trial court’s ruling “that there was good reason to support the MCI Superintendent’s decision. The MCI Superintendent thoroughly evaluated four factors, and she determined that, apart from one factor, petitioners and the grandmother were equal. The only factor in which there was a difference was a factor that the MCI Superintendent and Michigan policy place a great deal of emphasis on: keeping siblings together. The grandmother, in contrast to petitioners, desired to adopt both children. Given that petitioners did not desire to adopt EM, the MCI Superintendent determined that the factors weighed against consent.” The record showed that “the MCI Superintendent considered petitioners’ outstanding record as foster parents and did not rely on inaccurate information.” The court further noted that “TEM had expressed a desire to be adopted by the grandmother along with EM. Many other personnel, including the children’s therapist, physician, and guardian ad litem, supported keeping the children together. This was not an arbitrary and capricious determination but one supported by thoughtful analysis and adequate investigation.” Affirmed.