Petition to modify a child’s guardianship; Parenting time; MCL 712A.19a(14); In re Ballard; Factual findings; Credibility; Annual reviews of a guardianship; Standard of review applicable to the trial court’s decision; Pickering v Pickering; Distinguishing In re COH

Noting that trial courts are authorized, but not required, to order parenting time in a juvenile guardianship, the court held that the trial court’s decision not to do so here must be affirmed under the applicable highly deferential standard of review. The guardianship was established in 2021 after child protection proceedings were initiated. The court noted that the trial court’s decision to deny petitioner-mother’s petition must be affirmed unless its “factual findings ‘were against the great weight of the evidence,’ or either a clear legal error or a ‘palpable abuse of discretion’ occurred.” It found that none of these factors were present on the record. The trial court denied the “petition because it concluded that LNW was not ready for contact with petitioner and, therefore, an order of parenting time at this annual review was not appropriate. This finding is factual in nature and is not against the great weight of the evidence and will not be overturned on appeal.” The court noted that if the trial court had denied the “request outright and not left open the likelihood that it would be considered again at the next annual review hearing, such a finding may likely have been reversed.” But that was not the case. The “trial court summarized testimony from three mental health professionals who agreed that it would be inappropriate, if not detrimental, to suddenly order parenting time given LNW’s age, maturity, and the status of the relationship between the adults in her life. While all agreed that contact between LNW and petitioner will take place at some juncture,” the experts also agreed it should begin after “a gradual process facilitated by therapists and with LNW’s needs in mind.” The only one who had personally counseled LNW “testified that she did not believe LNW was emotionally mature enough for such contact to begin now.” The court noted the trial court’s “decision must be evaluated utilizing the highly deferential standard of review that [it] has previously applied to requests for parenting time with children subject to a juvenile guardianship under MCL 712A.19a” and that was not the standard applied in COH. Affirmed.