Appointment of a foreign language interpreter; MCR 1.111(B)(1) & (F)(2); Motion for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) determination; SIJ classification; Factual findings; MCR 7.216(A)(7); In re Velasquez; In re Guardianship of RH (Unpub)

The court vacated the order of the probate court and exercised its discretion to make each finding pertinent to DRRR’s SIJ status by a preponderance of the evidence, and find that DRRR was born on 5/25/06 in Guatemala, is under 21 years old, and is an unmarried minor under the laws of the State of Michigan. The court further found: (1) DRRR was declared dependent on the probate court through guardianship proceedings resulting in the appointment of appellant-guardian (her sister); (2) Reunification with her father is not viable due to neglect and abandonment, and reunification with her mother is not viable due to neglect; and (3) her “best interests would not be served by returning to her country of origin, Guatemala.” The court found “that the trial court erred when it failed to allow the hearing on [5/20/24] to proceed with an interpreter offered by appellant.” It concluded that it “made several critical errors, resulting in DRRR being denied meaningful access to justice[.]” Appellant requested “that this Court make the factual determinations for DRRR’s SIJ classification pursuant to MCR 7.216(A)(7) and” Velasquez. The court held that because “the record provides the necessary evidence and because it promotes the interests of justice to do so, we will make the predicate factual findings pertinent to” her SIJ status. It found “by a preponderance of the evidence that DRRR’s reunification with her father and mother was not viable due to abandonment and neglect by her father and neglect by her mother.” It also found by a preponderance of the evidence that her “best interests would not be served by returning to her country of origin, Guatemala. The record established that DRRR was required to work with her mother every day of the week in Guatemala, without personally receiving compensation, preventing her from performing the ordinary tasks of a student, such as studying and furthering her education.” Also, she was “not provided with adequate food and clothing in her country of origin.” The record demonstrated “that, in the United States, DRRR’s sister provides her food, clothing, and medical care, and facilitates her desire to pursue her education. The option between her country of origin and the United States presents a stark contrast. Accordingly, ‘[w]hether using the child custody factors, adoption factors, or a combination of factors,’ the record supports our finding that it is not in DRRR’s best interests to return to Guatemala.” Instead, the court found that “it is in her bests interests to remain in appellant’s custody in the United States.”