DeBoer v. Schmidt

Michigan Supreme Court
502 N.W.2d 649, 442 Mich. 648 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), state courts must enforce sister-state child custody determinations that were made consistently with the PKPA, establishing exclusive and continuing jurisdiction in the original state as long as a contestant resides there. Moreover, third parties generally lack standing under Michigan law to initiate custody disputes against a fit natural parent, as their emotional ties alone do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest independent of the child's biological parents.

Facts:

On February 8, 1991, Cara Clausen gave birth to a baby girl in Iowa.
On February 10, 1991, Cara Clausen signed a release of custody form relinquishing her parental rights, falsely naming Scott Seefeldt as the father.
On February 14, 1991, Scott Seefeldt executed a release of custody form.
On February 25, 1991, Roberta and Jan DeBoer, Michigan residents, filed a petition for adoption of the child in Iowa and were granted temporary custody, after which they took the child to Michigan.
On March 6, 1991, Cara Clausen filed a motion in Iowa Juvenile Court to revoke her release of custody, stating that Daniel Schmidt was the biological father.
On March 12, 1991, Daniel Schmidt filed an affidavit of paternity.
On March 27, 1991, Daniel Schmidt filed a petition to intervene in the DeBoers’ adoption proceeding in Iowa.
On November 4, 1991, the Iowa district court conducted a bench trial on the issues of paternity, termination of parental rights, and adoption, finding Daniel Schmidt to be the biological father and that he had not abandoned the child nor should his parental rights be terminated.

Procedural Posture:

On February 25, 1991, Roberta and Jan DeBoer filed a petition for adoption of the child in Iowa juvenile court.
On February 25, 1991, the Iowa juvenile court granted the DeBoers custody of the child during the pendency of the proceeding and terminated the parental rights of Cara Clausen and Scott Seefeldt.
On March 6, 1991, Cara Clausen filed a motion in Iowa Juvenile Court to revoke her release of custody.
On March 27, 1991, Daniel Schmidt filed a petition to intervene in the DeBoers’ adoption proceeding in Iowa district court.
On December 27, 1991, the Iowa district court ruled that the DeBoers' petition to adopt the child must be denied and ordered the DeBoers to return the child to Daniel Schmidt.
The Iowa appellate courts affirmed the district court’s decisions, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment awarding custody to Daniel Schmidt on September 23, 1992, subsequently denying the DeBoers’ request for rehearing.
On December 3, 1992, on remand, the Iowa district court ordered the DeBoers to appear with the child; the DeBoers did not appear.
On December 3, 1992, the Iowa district court terminated the DeBoers’ rights as temporary guardians and custodians of the child.
On December 3, 1992, the DeBoers filed a petition in Washtenaw Circuit Court (Michigan) asking the court to assume jurisdiction under the UCCJA, enjoin enforcement of the Iowa order, or modify it.
On December 3, 1992, the Washtenaw Circuit Court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order, directing that the child remain in the custody of the DeBoers.
On December 11, 1992, Daniel Schmidt filed a motion for summary judgment in Washtenaw Circuit Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction and enforce the Iowa judgment.
On January 5, 1993, the Washtenaw Circuit Court denied Schmidt’s motion for summary judgment, finding it had jurisdiction to determine the best interests of the child.
On March 29, 1993, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Washtenaw Circuit Court, concluding that court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJA and that the DeBoers lacked standing.
On April 14, 1993, a complaint for "child custody, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief” was filed in Washtenaw Circuit Court by "Jessica DeBoer (a/k/a Baby Girl Clausen), by her next friend, Peter Darrow.”
On April 14, 1993, the Washtenaw Circuit Court entered an order appointing Darrow as next friend and an order continuing the child’s residence status quo.
On April 27, 1993, the Schmidts filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, and also filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court before decision by the Court of Appeals.
On May 6, 1993, the Michigan Supreme Court granted the DeBoers’ application for leave to appeal in Docket No. 96366, and the Schmidts’ application for leave to appeal before decision by the Court of Appeals in Docket Nos. 96441, 96531, and 96532.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

1. Does the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) require Michigan courts to enforce an Iowa custody order awarding a child to her biological father, even when Iowa courts did not conduct a "best interests of the child" hearing? 2. Do third-party custodians, whose temporary custody was rescinded by a court in another state, have standing under Michigan law or federal constitutional principles to initiate a new custody action to determine the child's best interests? 3. Does a minor child have an independent right to initiate a Child Custody Act action to obtain a "best interests of the child" hearing regarding their custody?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

1. Yes, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) require Michigan courts to enforce the Iowa custody order. The PKPA mandates enforcement of sister-state child custody determinations if they were made consistently with its provisions. Iowa was the child’s “home state” at the commencement of the initial proceedings and had jurisdiction under its own laws. Daniel Schmidt, a contestant, continues to reside in Iowa, thereby establishing Iowa’s exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under the PKPA. The PKPA is a procedural and jurisdictional statute, and it does not impose a substantive “best interests of the child” rule on state laws. Iowa’s decision not to conduct such a hearing (because statutory grounds for termination, such as unfitness, were not established) does not render its judgment inconsistent with the PKPA or contrary to Michigan public policy, which also has circumstances where a best interests test is not paramount. 2. No, the DeBoers lack standing to bring this custody action under Michigan law. Under Bowie v. Arder, a third party lacks standing to create a custody dispute unless they possess a substantive right to custody or are a guardian. The DeBoers’ temporary custody, granted during the pendency of the Iowa adoption proceeding, was rescinded, ending their legal claim to custody. Federal constitutional cases regarding parental rights do not establish a federal constitutional right for non-parents to seek custody against natural parents, especially without a showing of unfitness. 3. No, a minor child does not have an independent right to initiate a Child Custody Act action to obtain a “best interests of the child” hearing. The act is intended to resolve disputes among adults. A child’s constitutionally protected interest in family life is generally not independent of their parents’ rights unless there is a showing of parental unfitness, which was not established against Daniel Schmidt in the Iowa litigation. The child’s interests were considered in Iowa through a guardian ad litem, and the equal protection arguments are rejected because children residing with natural parents are not similarly situated to those with nonparents.

Dissenting - Justice Levin

1. No, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) does not require Michigan courts to enforce the Iowa custody order. The majority misreads the PKPA by asserting Iowa was “unquestionably the home state.” Michigan, not Iowa, was the child’s “home state” under the PKPA’s definition because the child had resided there with the DeBoers, as “persons acting as a parent,” for over six consecutive months before the core custody issues ripened for adjudication. Therefore, Iowa’s custody determination was not made consistently with the PKPA. Alternatively, even if Iowa had jurisdiction, Michigan could modify the order because Iowa declined to exercise jurisdiction to conduct a “best interests of the child” hearing regarding the transfer of custody, as evidenced by its denial of the DeBoers' request for rehearing on that issue. 2. Yes, the DeBoers have standing under the PKPA to litigate custody. The PKPA defines “person acting as a parent” as someone who has physical custody and has been awarded custody by a court or claims a right to custody, which the DeBoers satisfy. They also qualify as “contestants” by claiming a right to custody. The PKPA clearly preempts inconsistent state law, including Michigan’s Bowie v. Arder ruling on third-party standing, in interstate custody disputes. Therefore, the DeBoers’ standing should be recognized. 3. Yes, a minor child has a statutory right under the Child Custody Act to have the court “declare the inherent rights” of the child. Moreover, the child possesses a constitutional liberty interest in her established family relationship with the DeBoers, which should be protected. Michigan’s public policy, as reflected in Section 39 of its Adoption Code, would require a best interests hearing for a putative father in Daniel Schmidt’s circumstances (who had not established a custodial relationship or supported the mother during pregnancy). Ignoring the child’s welfare and emotional well-being by strict legal formalism defeats the purpose of the PKPA, which was enacted to protect the child. The traumatic impact of forced removal on a child’s developing personality and character must be given paramount consideration.

Analysis:

This case significantly reinforces the supremacy of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) in interstate child custody disputes, demonstrating that federal law can override state-specific public policy concerns, such as the widely applied "best interests of the child" standard, when jurisdictional requirements are met. The Michigan Supreme Court's ruling emphasizes a strict interpretation of "home state" and exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the PKPA, severely limiting other states' ability to modify sister-state custody decrees. Furthermore, the decision solidifies a narrow view of third-party standing in Michigan, confirming that non-parents generally cannot initiate custody actions against a fit natural parent without a pre-existing substantive legal right, even when the child has strong emotional ties to the third party. The case highlights the difficult balance between upholding jurisdictional certainty and uniformity, and addressing the nuanced welfare of a child in deeply emotional, complex family disputes.

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query DeBoer v. Schmidt (1993) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.

Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Premium Feature