Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

Order 

June 5, 2015

151039 & (102)(103)

In re N. S. A. McCARTHY, Minor. SC: 151039

COA: 318855

Oakland CC Family Division:

07-739244-NA

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration and the motion to 

expand the record are GRANTED. On May 5, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on 

the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2015 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. The application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for 

further proceedings, including, within 60 days, a permanency planning hearing conducted 

pursuant to MCL 712A.19c. At that hearing, the court shall consider whether it is in the 

child’s best interests to appoint a guardianship with the child’s grandparents. In 

determining the best interests of the child, the court may utilize the factors provided in 

MCL 722.23, including “[t]he reasonable preference of the child . . . .” In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.

YOUNG, C.J. (concurring/dissenting). 

In denying this appeal, the Court has made no determination that the family court 

erred by finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best

interests. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that part of the Court’s order that 

presumes to direct the family court’s future actions. I see no legitimate basis for this 

Court to enter an order remanding for a permanency planning hearing to consider 

whether to appoint a guardianship with the child’s grandparents. That may be an 

appropriate consideration, but it is not our call to make.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 5, 2015

p0602

2

Clerk

The issue raised, briefed, and argued before this Court had nothing to do with the 

family court’s posttermination proceedings. The majority’s order in this case is, in my 

view, disrespectful of the family court as well as the parties, including the lawyerguardian ad litem, who might be expected to follow the law and advance the interests of 

the teenaged child in question. There is no live controversy for us to resolve, and the 

majority simply has no constitutional basis to intervene in the posttermination 

proceedings at this time. See King v Mich State Police Dep’t, 303 Mich App 162, 188 

(2013). 

The most significant fact undermining the majority’s action is that there is no 

indication in the record before us that the family court has failed in any way to consider a 

guardianship with the child’s grandparents or to hold the statutorily mandated hearings. 

In fact, we know that (1) the family court has a plan in place for the child that has 

allowed her to be placed with her grandparents, which has worked well so far as we 

know, (2) the family court conducted a review hearing on April 27, 2015, (3) the family 

court has scheduled a hearing for July 27, 2015, for a “permanent custody review,” and 

(4) the family court held a permanency planning hearing in the past. 

In sum, there is no basis in law or equity for this Court to intervene to impose its 

views and direct the future proceedings below, especially when it appears that the family 

court is meeting its statutory obligations under MCL 712A.19c and is working on a 

suitable placement plan for the child. 

Therefore, I would simply deny leave to appeal and permit the family court to 

continue to exercise its lawful discretion. 

VIVIANO, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, C.J.