Petition for guardianship under MCL 700.5204(2)(b); Whether respondent’s constitutional rights to make decisions about the custody & care of his child were infringed; “Permit”

The court concluded that “the trial court properly found the elements of MCL 700.5204(2)(b) were met, and” as a result, respondent-father’s “constitutional rights were not infringed.” Thus, the “trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petition for guardianship.” Respondent argued that it “violated his constitutional rights by granting a guardianship under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) because his parental rights had not been terminated, he had sole legal custody to his children, and he objected to petitioner” (his children’s aunt by marriage) having guardianship of his child, DPP. The court disagreed, holding that the “trial court did not violate [his] constitutional right to direct the custody and care of his child by appointing a guardian under MCL 700.5204(2)(b). [His] argument that the probate court interfered with decisions within his parental rights, such as the decision to appoint a guardian under MCL 700.5202 or delegate his authority under MCL 700.5201, is similarly without merit.” In arguing that MCL 700.5204(2)(b)’s requirements were not met, he asserted “that he did not ’permit’ DPP to reside with petitioner because he did not affirmatively consent and DPP was living in the United States against” respondent’s will and a custody order. He further argued “that he provided for DPP’s care by offering to sign a power of attorney with reasonable conditions.” The court again disagreed, concluding that “the trial court did not err by finding that the statutory requirements for a guardianship under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) were met because [he] permitted DPP to reside with petitioner within the meaning of the statute and had not provided legal authority for his care. The plain meaning of the word ‘permit’ encompasses the circumstance here in which respondent[] acquiesced or allowed his child to live with petitioner while he lived in another country, and did not provide legal authority for the child’s care at the time when the petition was filed.” Thus, the requirement “that the parent permits the child to reside with another person” was met. As to the remaining requirements, the court found that “at the time when the petition was filed, petitioner did not have legal authority to care for DPP. We look to the circumstances at the time when the petition was filed, and find that the previous power of attorney had expired nearly a year before.” The fact was “that neither petitioner nor any other relative had power to care for DPP” when the petition was filed. Thus, “the second requirement was also satisfied.” Finally, DPP was not living with respondent “at the time the petition was filed.” Despite respondent’s “desire to reunify his family, DPP had not been to Northern Ireland in two years and had resided with petitioner since [8/22]. Accordingly, the third and final requirement under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) was met.” Affirmed.