Maternal grandparents sued for custody of an eleven-year-old child whose mother had died. The father's past history of drug use, including three terms of imprisonment for drug possession, caused the court to grant a limited guardianship with the grandparents. The father was to have made a transition from supervised parenting time in the grandparents' home to full custody over a period of time. About ten months after the limited guardianship was begun, the grandparents filed a complaint seeking custody.
The evidence showed that the father had not submitted to weekly drug testing as required by the limited guardianship placement plan. He also admitted to smoking marijuana during four of the ten-month period between the beginning of the limited guardianship and the filing of the complaint for custody.
The father defended by claiming that he had substantially complied with the plan and that the grandparents lacked standing to sue for custody. According to MCL 722.26b, limited guardians do not have standing to seek custody if a child's parent has substantially complied with the placement plan.
When the trial court held the father had substantially complied, the grandparents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The case turned on the definition of "substantial compliance," and the COA stated:
"While the drug testing provision of the plan was but one of many requirements, it was an extremely important aspect of the plan and, contrary to the court’s findings, there was virtually no compliance whatsoever, where compliance not only related to providing negative or clean screens but also to the simple act of submitting to the drug testing in and of itself on a weekly basis. Moreover, defendant’s actions in using drugs set the entire plan off its schedule. Substantial compliance was lacking."
See Hill v Minix, Docket No. 281131, decided July 19, 2005.
To contact Jeanne Hannah with your questions or to view her Family Law website, click here.
Comments