Removal of coguardian & appointment of sole plenary guardian; Legally incapacitated person’s presence & preference; MCL 330.1455(1); MCL 330.1628(2); “To question” & “to testify”; Distinguishing In re HRC; Challenges to the probate court’s order; Vexatious appeal; Sanctions; Guardian ad litem (GAL)

The court held that the probate court properly granted appellee-Bazakis’s (father) petition to remove appellant-Bomba (mother) as coguardian and appoint Bazakis as sole guardian. However, it denied Bazakis’s request for sanctions. The case revolved around the care of AMMB, a legally incapacitated person. Bomba argued “that the trial court erred by excusing AMMB’s presence during the proceedings and by ascertaining her preference in an unrecorded in camera interview.” But Bomba “failed to establish that the probate court erred by allowing AMMB to be excused from the courtroom during these proceedings. AMMB was present in the courtroom for the first day of the proceedings, but her [GAL] subsequently moved to excuse her from the hearings. The GAL provided letters from AMMB’s primary care physician as well as her psychiatrist in which they each opined that it would be detrimental to AMMB’s wellbeing to attend the court proceedings.” Bomba argued that the probate court failed to abide by the requirements of MCL 330.1455(1). However, she could not “establish any error, particularly plain error, because MCL 330.1455 does not apply to this proceeding.” Bomba’s claim “that in camera interviews are impermissible relies largely on In re HRC,” a case involving the termination of parental rights. “In that case, this Court stated that ‘the use of an unrecorded and off the record in camera interview in the context of a juvenile proceeding, for whatever purpose, constitutes a violation of parents’ fundamental due process rights.’” The court held that “different context and liberty interests makes this case plainly distinguishable. It is well established that parents have a significant liberty interest in the care and custody of their children.” However, the court noted that “parents do not have a liberty interest in exercising control of the affairs of their adult children.” This case involved the rights and interests of AMMB, not her parents. Bomba’s challenges to the probate court order had no merit. Finally, the court disagreed “with Bazakis’s characterization of this matter as a vexatious appeal and accordingly decline[d] to sanction Bomba.”