IN RE FG MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re F.G., Minor.
F.G., a minor,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 23, 2004
9:05 a.m.
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
WASHTENAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 249039
Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 00-000658-AV
Official Reported Version
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Hoekstra, JJ.
FITZGERALD, J.
Petitioner FG appeals by leave granted a circuit court order affirming the probate court's
denial of her petition to review her closed file relating to judicial bypass proceedings in which
she participated as a minor pursuant to the Parental Rights Restoration Act (PRRA), MCL
722.901 et seq. We reverse.
I. Facts and Procedural History
In the fall of 1996, when petitioner was fifteen years old, she successfully petitioned the
probate court for a waiver of parental consent to obtain an abortion under the PRRA and former
MCR 5.783, now MCR 3.615.1 As required by MCR 3.615(B), petitioner's file was sealed at the
conclusion of the proceedings.2 Subsequently, petitioner had the requested abortion.
In 2000, after petitioner reached the age of majority, she petitioned the probate court to
open her file for her review pursuant to MCR 3.615(B)(3). Petitioner claimed that she was
suffering from mental illness during the bypass proceedings and at the time of her abortion. She
contends that, because of her illness and prescribed medication, she has only a vague memory of
1
MCR 5.783 has since been replaced by MCR 3.615, which is identical in all respects.
2
Petitioner is also referred to by her initials to preserve her confidentiality under this provision.
-1-
these events. On account of her alleged impaired recollection, petitioner wished to determine
from the probate court file whether she knowingly sought the waiver of parental consent and
consented to the abortion, and whether her rights had been violated during the proceedings
giving rise to a cause of action.3 The probate court denied petitioner's request, finding that she
failed to establish "good cause" to open the file as required by the court rule. The court reasoned
that because the probate court's role was to determine whether petitioner was mature enough and
had sufficient knowledge and understanding to waive parental consent, MCL 722.904(3)(a), the
record would not contain the sought-after information regarding the quality of petitioner's
decisions.
Petitioner appealed to the circuit court.4 Petitioner indicated to the circuit court that she
wished to review her file to determine what information the probate court received from her
social worker and attorney and considered regarding her history of mental illness and treatment
in granting the waiver. The circuit court determined that the probate court had not abused its
discretion in determining that petitioner failed to establish good cause to open her file. This
appeal followed.5
II. Standard of Review
Petitioner contends that the circuit court improperly reviewed the probate court's decision
for an abuse of discretion. The probate court determined that petitioner failed to establish good
cause to open her file pursuant to MCR 3.615(B)(3). As the decision involves the interpretation
of a court rule, petitioner asserts that the circuit court should have reviewed the decision de
novo. Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard of review is a question of law that
we review de novo. Arthur Land Co, LLC v Otsego Co, 249 Mich App 650, 661-662; 645
NW2d 50 (2002); Palo Group Foster Care, Inc v Dep't of Social Services, 228 Mich App 140,
145; 577 NW2d 200 (1998).6
MCR 3.615(B)(3) provides:
3
Petitioner was given the opportunity to review her file with the agency that conducted her
abortion, but was unable to glean any relevant information.
4
The circuit court originally found that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and directed the
filing to this Court. However, a panel of this Court vacated that order and remanded for a
determination on the merits. Unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 1,
2002 (Docket Number 238267).
5
A panel of this Court initially denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal. Unpublished
order, entered September 6, 2002 (Docket No. 242202). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the
Michigan Supreme Court remanded to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. 468
Mich 919 (2003).
6
Many of the appellate rules, MCR 7.101 et seq., apply equally to the circuit court when taking
an appeal from the probate court. MCR 7.101(A)(1). Accordingly, we find no reason to
distinguish between the circuit court's appellate role and that of this Court.
-2-
The court shall maintain only one file of all papers for each case. The file
shall be inspected only by the judge, specifically authorized court personnel, the
minor, her attorney, her next friend, the guardian ad litem, and any other person
authorized by the minor. After the proceedings are completed, the file may be
opened only by order of the court for good cause shown and only for a purpose
specified in the order of the court.
The probate court determined that petitioner had not shown good cause to open her file.
However, the term "good cause" is not defined by the court rule. The interpretation of a court
rule, like a question of statutory construction, is subject to review de novo on appeal. St George
Greek Orthodox Church of Southgate v Laupmanis Assoc, PC, 204 Mich App 278, 282; 514
NW2d 516 (1994). The construction of the term "good cause" is also a question of law subject
to review de novo. See generally Daniels v Allen Industries, Inc, 391 Mich 398; 216 NW2d 762
(1974), superseded by statute in Davis v O'Brien, 152 Mich App 495; 393 NW2d 914 (1986).
See also Richards v McNamee, 240 Mich App 444, 447, 451-453; 613 NW2d 366 (2000).
Furthermore, it is well settled that when there is no dispute concerning the underlying facts, the
questions presented on appeal are to be treated as questions of law. Capac Bus Drivers Ass'n v
Capac Community Schools Bd of Ed, 140 Mich App 542, 547; 364 NW2d 739 (1985); Robinson
v Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 123 Mich App 442, 445; 333 NW2d 306 (1983). The only issue
before the probate court was whether the facts presented, which were not in dispute, were legally
sufficient to constitute "good cause" pursuant to the court rule. Accordingly, the circuit court
erred in failing to review the probate court's decision de novo.7
III. Good Cause
Petitioner challenges the circuit court's affirmation of the probate court's finding that she
failed to establish good cause to open her file pursuant to MCR 3.615(B)(3). First, we must
determine the definition of "good cause" as used in the court rule. We must give effect to a
statute or court rule as written when its language is clear and unambiguous. People v Morey,
461 Mich 325, 329-330; 603 NW2d 250 (1999). In construing ambiguous language, every word
or phrase, unless specifically defined, should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,
considering the context in which the words are used. Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich
341, 346; 578 NW2d 274 (1998); Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175, 183; 670 NW2d 675
(2003). The court may consult a dictionary to determine the ordinary meaning of undefined
words in a statute or court rule. Lewis, supra at 183; In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App
454, 460; 660 NW2d 777 (2003); St George Greek Orthodox Church, supra at 282. Also, "[t]he
7
The circuit court relied on In re Dixon, 116 Mich App 763; 323 NW2d 549 (1982), remanded
by 417 Mich 986 (1983), in support of its application of the abuse of discretion standard. In
Dixon, this Court upheld a probate court determination that the petitioner had not shown good
cause to open adoption records. Although the standard applied was not referenced by name, this
Court first reviewed de novo the probate court's interpretation of the applicable statute, finding
that the good cause determination required a balancing of the respective interests. 116 Mich App
768. This Court then afforded the probate court's balancing of those interests the more
deferential abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 771.
-3-
court must consider the object of the statute [or court rule], the harm it is designed to remedy,
and apply a reasonable construction [that] best accomplishes the statute's [or rule's] purpose, but
should also always use common sense." Morris & Doherty, PC v Lockwood, 259 Mich App 38,
44; 672 NW2d 884 (2003). Courts should seek to avoid a construction that would produce
absurd results, injustice, or prejudice to the public interest and should strive to be logical and
best accomplish the statute's or rule's purpose. Id.
As the court rule fails to define "good cause," we turn to the dictionary and case law for
assistance. Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed) currently defines "good cause" as "[a] legally
sufficient reason." Similarly, this Court has defined "good cause" as "a substantial reason
amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law." Richards,
supra at 452, citing Franchise Mgt Unlimited, Inc v America's Favorite Chicken, 221 Mich App
239, 246; 561 NW2d 123 (1997), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed) (Franchise Mgt was
vacated on other grounds 459 Mich 954 [1999]). Following these definitions, petitioner must
show a legally sufficient or substantial reason for opening her file consistent with the purpose of
MCR 3.615(B).
The purpose of MCR 3.615(B) is to protect the confidentiality of a minor seeking to
obtain a waiver of parental consent for an abortion. See MCR 3.615(B)(1) ("The court shall
assure the confidentiality of the file, the assistance given the minor by court personnel, and the
proceedings"). The rule protects the file and the minor's identifying information from disclosure
to persons other than the judge and specifically authorized court personnel, as well as the minor
herself and those acting with her authorization. The rule further provides that the file shall be
closed at the conclusion of the proceedings and may only be opened by order of the court upon a
showing of good cause. MCR 3.615(B)(3).
Petitioner sought to reopen her file to determine whether she voluntarily sought the
waiver of parental consent, whether she voluntarily consented to an abortion, whether any of her
rights were violated, and whether she has any causes of action arising from the proceedings. She
explained that she was under medical treatment for psychiatric disturbances and mental illness,
for which she was receiving treatment (including medication) at the time of the proceedings.
Petitioner indicates that, as a result of the treatment, she has only a vague recollection of the
waiver proceedings. Respondent does not challenge the factual allegations made by petitioner
that "she was under medical treatment" and that she "only has a vague recollection" of the
waiver proceedings. Petitioner asserts that her mental illness and resulting treatment was
information that should have been provided to and considered by the probate court during the
waiver proceedings and she seeks to determine what information she, her former attorney, and
her former social worker gave the court regarding her mental conditions. Petitioner's reasons for
seeking to review her file are legally sufficient to constitute good cause under MCR 3.615(B)(3),
and her confidentiality will not be compromised as a result of allowing her to review the file.8
8
The circuit court relied on Dixon in affirming the probate court's decision. However, Dixon
does not provide an appropriate analytical framework for this case. There, this Court provided
that the determination whether good cause had been shown to open adoption files required a
(continued…)
-4-
Reversed.
Hoekstra, J., concurred.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
(…continued)
balancing test between the competing interests of the adoptee, the biological parents, and the
state. Dixon, supra at 768. In the instant matter, there are no competing interests to balance.
Rather, the state's only interest, as expressed in MCR 3.615(B)(3) is in protecting the
confidentiality of the minor and the proceedings. The minor's interest also is in having her
confidentiality preserved. Thus, the interests of petitioner and of the state are essentially the
same. Therefore, Dixon is inapposite.
-5-
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.
