Krajewski v. Krajewski, Docket No. 63848
Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 63848 |
Citation | 125 Mich.App. 407,335 N.W.2d 923 |
Parties | Edna KRAJEWSKI (Now Edna Kiser), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerhard KRAJEWSKI, Defendant, v. Theresa KRAJEWSKI, Minor, by Guardian ad Litem James STRAUB, and Prosecuting Attorney for Berrien County, Michigan, Appellees. 125 Mich.App. 407, 335 N.W.2d 923 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[125 MICHAPP 409] Berrien County Legal Services Bureau, Inc. by Mary Ellen Drolet, St. Joseph, for plaintiff-appellant.
Seymour, Conybeare, Straub, Seaman & Allen by James M. Straub, St. Joseph, for appellee Theresa Krajewski by guardian ad litem James Straub.
Paul L. Maloney, Pros. Atty., and Robert S. Yampolsky, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Joseph, for appellees.
Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and MAHER and SIMON *, JJ.
This action originally came before the Berrien County Circuit Court on motion of the prosecutor to waive jurisdiction over a child, Theresa Krajewski, to probate court where proceedings based on neglect were pending. The child, through her guardian ad litem, then brought a motion in circuit court for a declaratory judgment that a waiver of circuit court jurisdiction was not a prerequisite to probate court jurisdiction. Plaintiff appeals from the circuit court's determination that no waiver of circuit court jurisdiction was necessary. 1
The custody of Theresa and her brother Edward was originally placed in plaintiff mother, Edna Krajewski, by a judgment of divorce granted in 1974. Subsequently, Theresa and Edward became temporary wards of the probate court under neglect proceedings. Probate jurisdiction over [125 MICHAPP 410] Theresa was terminated in 1978. Shortly thereafter the circuit court order was modified to place custody of Theresa in defendant father, Gerhard Krajewski.
In 1979, a neglect petition based on the father's failure to deal with Theresa's school problems was filed in probate court. The child was, after due hearing, made a temporary ward of the probate court and placed in a foster home under the supervision of the Department of Social Services. The mother appeared at this hearing and requested an opportunity to prove that she was a suitable person to take custody of her daughter because the pending petition contained no allegations of neglect on her part. While the action was pending, the question arose as to whether a waiver was necessary from circuit court because of this Court's decision in Rozelle v. Dora, 103 Mich.App. 607, 303 N.W.2d 43 (1981). The present action was then initiated in circuit court. The circuit judge ruled that Rozelle was factually distinguishable and that GCR 1963, 724.1(5) was intended to override any limiting effect M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(b)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2) might have on a probate court's exercise of jurisdiction. The effect of the ruling was that proceedings could continue in the probate court.
The probate court has no inherent powers. Its jurisdiction over children is derived solely from the Michigan Constitution and statutes. Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich. 97, 112, 92 N.W.2d 604 (1958). The probate court has original jurisdiction in all cases involving dependents, except as otherwise provided by law. Const.1963, art. 6, Sec. 15. Since the circuit courts have original jurisdiction in all matters not prohibited by law, Const.1963, art. 6, Sec. 13, circuit and probate courts have concurrent jurisdiction [125 MICHAPP 411] over neglected and abused minor children. Sovereign v. Sovereign, 354 Mich. 65, 86-87, 92 N.W.2d 585 (1958).
M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(b)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2) grants the probate court jurisdiction over neglect proceedings and further provides:
(Emphasis added).
PCR 111.2 incorporates by reference GCR 1963, 724.1(5), which provides:
Rozelle v. Dora, supra, presented this Court with the procedural converse of the present case. In Rozelle, the issue was whether the circuit court, having continuing jurisdiction over the child pursuant to a divorce decree, could entertain a motion for visitation rights after the probate court had permanently terminated the rights. The Court concluded that the circuit court could exercise jurisdiction under M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(b)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2), reasoning:
"The critical language is that contained in the second paragraph of subsection 2 above. This section provides that where the custody of a child is within the continuing jurisdiction of one court, a probate court later presented with a petition regarding custody is required to provide notice of the petition to the prosecutor in the county of the first court. That prosecuting attorney is then required to prepare pertinent pleadings or other documents so as to bring the custody-related matter [125 MICHAPP 413] before the court with continuing jurisdiction. The only authority of the probate court to act in regards to a person over whom the prior court has continuing jurisdiction is that 'temporary orders' may be issued which are 'deemed advisable or necessary for the protection of such child'.
* * *
103 Mich.App. at 610-612, 303 N.W.2d 43.
The Court also noted that under the procedural posture of the case GCR 1963, 724.1(5) did not conflict with M.C.L. Sec. 712A.2(b)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2). While we agree with that conclusion, in the procedural setting of the present case, a clear conflict between the statute and rule arises.
When addressing a question of statutory meaning, this Court must first review the specific language of the disputed provision. Lamphere Schools v. Lamphere Federation of Teachers, 400 Mich. 104, 110, 252 N.W.2d 818 (1977), citing Dussia v. Monroe County Employees Retirement System, 386 Mich. 244, 191 N.W.2d 307 (1971). Further, it is a court's duty to determine and declare the legislative intent behind a particular provision. Aikens v. Dep't of Conservation, 387 Mich. 495, 198 N.W.2d 304 (1972).
As noted in Rozelle, the terms of M.C.L. Sec. [125 MICHAPP 414] 712A.2(b)(2); M.S.A. Sec. 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2) are clear and unambiguous. The statute provides that where an allegedly neglected child is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of a circuit court, the probate cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hart v. State
...App. 564, 567, 250 N.W.2d 127 (1976) ; Tenney v. Springer , 121 Mich. App. 47, 51, 328 N.W.2d 566 (1982) ; Krajewski v. Krajewski , 125 Mich. App. 407, 409 n. 1, 335 N.W.2d 923 (1983), rev'd on other grounds 420 Mich. 729, 362 N.W.2d 230 (1984) ; Guzowski v. Detroit Racing Ass'n, Inc. , 130......
-
Brown, Matter of
...a probate court's jurisdiction over children is derived solely from the state constitution and statutes. Krajewski v. Krajewski, 125 Mich.App. 407, 410, 335 N.W.2d 923 (1983), rev'd on other grounds 420 Mich. 729, 362 N.W.2d 230 (1984); Fritts v. Krugh, 354 Mich. 97, 112, 92 N.W.2d 604 (195......
-
Estate of Hillier, Matter of
...between a statute and a court rule, the court rule prevails only if it governs practice or procedure. Krajewski v. Krajewski, 125 Mich.App. 407, 414, 335 N.W.2d 923 (1983), rev'd on other grounds 420 Mich. 729, 362 N.W.2d 230 This Court previously addressed the issue whether a motion for re......
-
Robey, Matter of
...that the child is dependent and neglected. Moses, supra; Foy v. Foy, 22 Mich.App . 514, 177 N.W.2d 681 (1970); Krajewski v. Krajewski, 125 Mich.App. 407, 335 N.W.2d 923 (1983), lv. gtd. 418 Mich. 878 (1983); In the Matter of Kalvan Smith, 131 Mich.App. 524, 346 N.W.2d 588 (1984). An invalid......