IN RE MICHAEL BATES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL BATES.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 12, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 242866
Wayne Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 99-377610
MICHAEL BATES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O'Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Michael Bates, a minor, entered a plea of admission to a charge of possession
with intent to deliver cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv). He was initially placed at home with his
mother by an order of disposition, but on a motion for rehearing a subsequent order of
disposition was issued placing him with the Wayne County Department of Community Justice.
Respondent appeals as of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
At respondent’s original disposition hearing, the court did not realize that the parental
rights of respondent’s parents had been terminated and therefore the court placed respondent on
intensive probation in the home of his former mother. Although the prosecutor claimed the
former mother had once complained that respondent was not listening to her, all other reports
indicated that respondent was doing very well on intensive probation in this placement.
Nonetheless, when it was brought to the court’s attention that respondent had been placed with
someone who was no longer his parent, the court determined that this placement could not
continue.
Respondent argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it sent him to the
Department of Community Justice. Respondent claims the judge erroneously accepted the
prosecutor’s claim that respondent was not obeying his mother, and thus characterizes this move
as an “escalation” not warranted by the evidence. Respondent analogizes this case to a violation
of probation, and asserts that there was no showing of noncompliance with probationary terms so
as to justify the commitment to the Department of Community Justice.
-1-
Respondent mischaracterizes what happened. First, there is no indication that the trial
court based its decision on the prosecutor’s claim that respondent had not listened to his mother.
There was no finding that this action was taken due to any noncompliance with the terms of
probation. Similarly, there is no indication that the trial court sent respondent to the Department
of Community Justice as a punishment or “escalation.” Rather, it appears that the trial court was
simply trying to rectify the initial mistake of placing respondent with his former mother when
she was no longer his parent. The placement had been recommended by the Clinic for Child
Study report. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion. See People v Brown, 205 Mich App
503, 504-505; 517 NW2d 806 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
