Kubick v. Child and Family Services of Michigan, Inc., Docket No. 100124

• Citation: 429 N.W.2d 881,171 Mich.App. 304
• Decision Date: 12 October 1988
• Docket Number: Docket No. 100124
• Parties: Carol (Weaver) KUBICK, Individually and as Next Friend of Nicole Weaver and Gina Weaver, minors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF MICHIGAN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 881

429 N.W.2d 881

171 Mich.App. 304

Carol (Weaver) KUBICK, Individually and as Next Friend of Nicole Weaver and Gina Weaver, minors, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES OF MICHIGAN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 100124.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 7, 1987.

Decided Sept. 7, 1988.

Released for Publication Oct. 12, 1988.

Richard J. Jason, P.C. by Richard John Jason, Marquette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kendricks, Bordeau, Adamini, Keefe, Smith & Girard, P.C. by James R. Jessup, Marquette, for defendant-appellee.

Before MAHER, P.J., and McDONALD and LIVO, ^* JJ.

LIVO, Judge.

Plaintiff, Carol (Weaver) Kubick, individually and as next friend of Nicole and Gina Weaver, appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit against defendant, Child and Family Services of Michigan, Inc. Plaintiff requested certain records from defendant pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), M.C.L. Sec. 15.231 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1) et seq., and the trial court ruled that defendant was not a "public body" as that term is defined within the FOIA. We agree and affirm.

At some point in 1983, the Marquette County Probate Court assumed jurisdiction over plaintiff's daughters Nicole and Gina. On December 14, 1983, the Marquette County Department of Social Services referred the case to defendant, a private nonprofit corporation. Defendant was to provide supervision and intensive foster care for the girls while attempts were made to rehabilitate plaintiff as a mother.

On July 2, 1984, plaintiff signed authorizations for the release of information on her behalf and on behalf of her daughters. Defendant did not release the requested information to plaintiff. Two requests were made for the information by plaintiff's counsel. Both requests were denied. Plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking disclosure of the contents of the files in defendant's possession that were maintained in regards to plaintiff and her daughters. The trial court ordered defendant to release financial information about defendant to plaintiff but thereafter dismissed plaintiff's case. The trial court ruled that defendant was not a public body within the meaning of the FOIA, and defendant was therefore not required to follow the FOIA and release the requested information.

The FOIA states:

"It is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees, consistent with this act. The people shall be informed so that they may fully participate in the democratic process." M.C.L. Sec. 15.231(2); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(1)(2).

The FOIA applies to all public bodies, which is defined in the act:

"(b) 'Public body' means:

"(i) A state officer, employee, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, or other body in the executive branch of the state government, but does not include the governor or lieutenant governor, the executive office of the governor or lieutenant governor, or employees thereof.

"(ii) An agency, board, commission, or council in the legislative branch of the state government.

"(iii) A county, city, township, village, intercounty, intercity, or regional governing body, council, school district, special district, or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council, or agency thereof.

"(iv) Any other body which is created by state or local authority or which is primarily funded by or through state or local authority.

"(v) The judiciary, including the office of the county clerk and employees thereof when acting in the capacity of clerk to the circuit court, is not included in the definition of public body." M.C.L. Sec. 15.232(b); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(2)(b).

The instant case turns on the interpretation of M.C.L. Sec. 15.232(b)(iv); M.S.A. Sec. 4.1801(2)(b)(iv), and how to determine if a "body" is "primarily funded by or through state or local authority." No appellate court of this state has in a published opinion interpreted this clause of the FOIA. We note that the federal FOIA is of no help in interpreting this phrase as a private organization is not a government agency for purposes of the federal FOIA notwithstanding the source of its funding. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(e).

Briefly stated, the rules of statutory construction are:

"(1) when a statute is unambiguous, further construction is to be avoided; (2) if an ambiguity exists, the intent of the Legislature must be given effect; (3) a construction which best accomplishes the statute's purpose is favored; (4) statutes are to be interpreted as a whole and construed so as to give effect to each provision; (5) specific words in a statute are given their ordinary meaning unless a different interpretation is indicated; and (6) respectful consideration is to be given to the construction of a statute used by those charged with its application." Nicholas v. Michigan State Employees Retirement Bd., 144 Mich.App. 70, 74, 372 N.W.2d 685 (1985).

The ordinary meaning of "primarily" is "chiefly; principally." American Heritage Dictionary (2d ed) (1985). Thus, "primarily...