Whether the Michigan Children’s Institute’s (MCI) decision to withhold consent for adoption was arbitrary & capricious

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the trial court properly determined that respondent-MCI’s “finding was not arbitrary and capricious, and denied the motion challenging the decision.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner’s petition to adopt. The case arose out of her “attempt to adopt her minor grandchildren, ASLM and JACM, after the parental rights of the children’s parents were terminated.” She challenged “the trial court’s denial of her motion, filed under MCL 710.45,” arguing that the MCI’s “decision to withhold consent for adoption was arbitrary and capricious.” The court noted that the “superintendent’s decision primarily focused on the second factor, the willingness and ability of a relative to ensure the physical and emotional well-being of the children on a permanent basis.” Petitioner did not show “that the superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.” The court found that petitioner appeared “to be conflating DHHS’s initial removal and placement of the children with the MCI superintendent’s consideration of her petition to adopt following” termination. The children were initially placed with relatives but later moved to a nonrelative foster home. The record did “not indicate the reason for the change. In any event, the children’s placement following removal was not at issue at the hearing in this case.” Further, nothing in the record suggested “the MCI superintendent’s decision concerning adoption was untimely, or that the superintendent improperly used negative information against the children’s relatives while disregarding negative information” as to the foster family. A “significant portion of petitioner’s argument concerns her claim that the foster home is unsuitable for the children.” But many of her claims were not substantiated by any record evidence. She also argued “that the children did not exhibit physical, mental, or behavioral issues before being placed in foster care.” The court noted that they “were young when they were removed from their mother—ASLM was six years old, and JACM was 1-1/2 years old.” It was reasonable that some of their “struggles were discovered as they grew and started attending school. And petitioner’s characterization of [their] significant special needs as being caused by their foster placement casts doubts on her ability to manage those needs if they were in her care and custody.” She also argued “that the superintendent considered improper information about [her] in the decision.” But the court agreed “with the trial court that any minor errors in the recitation of petitioner’s criminal history, CPS history, or martial status did not render the superintendent’s decision arbitrary and capricious.” Finally, petitioner did “not explain what additional discovery she should have received or how additional discovery would have altered the outcome of the hearing.”