Jurisdiction over the children; MCL 712A.2(b)(1) & (b)(2); Mootness; Collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine; In re Holbrook

The court declined to reach the issues on appeal at this time. Rather, while retaining jurisdiction, it remanded “for a hearing to determine whether this appeal has become moot.” Respondent-mother contended “that the trial court violated her right to due process by allowing testimony about allegations not contained in the petition and that there was insufficient evidence to establish a statutory basis for jurisdiction.” The court noted that the “trial court found that respondent had made progress toward alleviating or mitigating the conditions that brought the children under” its jurisdiction. Thus, the trial court “closed the case. This subsequent event raises the question whether this appeal is now moot.” As a result, “an event has occurred that seemingly ‘makes it impossible’ for this Court to grant relief.” Also, it concluded that the exception to the mootness doctrine for issues of public significance likely to recur but that may evade judicial review did not apply. However, similar to Holbrook, “there is no showing in the current record regarding whether respondent is on the Central Registry.” Further, her potential placement on the DHHS’s “electronic case-management system, MCL 722.628(11), could also cause collateral consequences for” her. The court held that as in Holbrook, “these potential collateral consequences are ‘neither definitively supported nor refuted with records in our Court.’” And it noted that “the trial court is the better forum to make factual determinations.” Thus, while retaining jurisdiction, it remanded the “case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the respondent will suffer collateral consequences as a result of the adjudication and whether this case has become moot.”