In Re Clausen

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

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) mandates that states enforce child custody determinations made by another state if that state had jurisdiction under its own laws and was the child's "home state" at the commencement of the proceeding, and its jurisdiction continues. A third party generally lacks standing to initiate a custody dispute against a natural parent unless the parent is found unfit.

Facts:

On February 8, 1991, Cara Clausen gave birth to a baby girl in Iowa.
On February 10, 1991, Cara Clausen, who was unmarried, signed a release of custody form, relinquishing her parental rights, and named 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 juvenile court and were granted temporary custody, taking the child to Michigan.
On March 6, 1991, Cara Clausen filed a motion to revoke her release, stating she lied about Scott Seefeldt and that Daniel Schmidt was the actual father.
Daniel Schmidt filed an affidavit of paternity on March 12, 1991, and a petition to intervene in the DeBoers' adoption proceeding on March 27, 1991.
Daniel Schmidt continues to reside in Iowa.
Cara Clausen and Daniel Schmidt married in April 1992.

Procedural Posture:

Roberta and Jan DeBoer filed a petition for adoption in Iowa juvenile court.
The Iowa juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Cara Clausen and Scott Seefeldt and granted the DeBoers temporary custody of the child during the pendency of the proceeding.
Cara Clausen filed a motion in the Iowa Juvenile Court to revoke her release of custody.
Daniel Schmidt filed a petition in the Iowa district court to intervene in the DeBoers' adoption proceeding.
On November 4, 1991, the Iowa district court conducted a bench trial on paternity, termination of parental rights, and adoption, finding Daniel Schmidt to be the biological father, that the DeBoers failed to establish abandonment or unfitness, and denied the DeBoers' adoption petition.
The Iowa appellate courts affirmed these decisions.
The Iowa Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court.
The Iowa district court ordered the DeBoers to appear with the child on December 3, 1992; 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 it to assume jurisdiction under the UCCJA, enjoin the Iowa order, or modify it to give them custody.
The Washtenaw Circuit Court entered an ex parte temporary restraining order, directing the child remain with the DeBoers.
Daniel Schmidt filed a motion for summary judgment in Washtenaw Circuit Court to dissolve the injunction and enforce the Iowa judgment.
On January 5, 1993, the Washtenaw Circuit Court denied Schmidt's motion, finding it had jurisdiction to determine the child's best interests.
The Washtenaw Circuit Court held an eight-day best interests hearing, concluding on February 12, 1993, that it was in the child's best interests to remain with the DeBoers.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the Washtenaw Circuit Court's denial of Schmidt's summary judgment motion, concluding the circuit court lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJA and the DeBoers lacked standing under Bowie v Arder.
On April 14, 1993, a new 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."
The Washtenaw Circuit Court appointed Darrow as next friend and issued an "order continuing status quo" for the child's residence.
The Schmidts filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court before a decision by the Court of Appeals.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted the DeBoers' application for leave to appeal (Docket No. 96366), limited to jurisdiction and standing, and granted the Schmidts' application for leave to appeal (Docket Nos. 96441, 96531, 96532) before decision by the Court of Appeals, limited to whether the action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Does the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) require Michigan courts to enforce an Iowa custody order awarding custody to biological parents, despite the Iowa courts not conducting a "best interests of the child" hearing, and do third-party custodians or a child's next friend have standing to initiate a custody action in Michigan challenging such an order?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) require Michigan courts to enforce the Iowa custody order awarding custody to the biological parents, Daniel and Cara Schmidt, and no, neither the third-party custodians (DeBoers) nor the child's next friend have standing to initiate a custody action in Michigan challenging that order. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment based on two independent reasons: 1. Jurisdiction under PKPA/UCCJA: The PKPA mandates that Michigan courts enforce the Iowa custody order. Iowa had exclusive continuing jurisdiction because it was the child's "home state" at the commencement of the adoption and termination proceedings in February 1991, and Daniel Schmidt, a contestant, continued to reside there. The PKPA prioritizes uniformity and stability in interstate custody determinations and preempts inconsistent state law, meaning Michigan cannot refuse to enforce the Iowa judgment simply because Iowa did not conduct a "best interests of the child" hearing. The PKPA is a procedural and jurisdictional statute, not one that imposes substantive best interests rules on states. Iowa's determination was made consistently with PKPA's provisions, and Iowa did not decline to exercise jurisdiction. 2. Standing: The DeBoers lack standing to bring this custody action under Michigan law, specifically Bowie v Arder. Once the Iowa district court terminated the DeBoers' temporary custody rights, they became third parties without a legal claim to custody. Bowie established that neither the Child Custody Act nor any other authority gives standing to create a custody dispute to a third party who does not possess a substantive right to custody or is not a guardian. Similarly, the child's next friend cannot bring an action for a "best interests" hearing. While children have a due process liberty interest in family life, this interest is not independent of their parents' rights unless there's a showing of parental unfitness. In the Iowa proceedings, Daniel Schmidt's fitness was litigated, and the DeBoers failed to prove unfitness. Michigan public policy, as reflected in various statutes, does not always require a "best interests" hearing when parental rights are involved, especially when a natural parent is not found unfit.

Dissenting - Levin, J.

No, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) does not require Michigan courts to enforce the Iowa custody order without a best interests of the child hearing, and yes, the DeBoers and the child's next friend should have standing. Justice Levin would reverse the Court of Appeals, arguing that: 1. PKPA Application: The majority misidentified Iowa as the "home state" under the PKPA. Michigan was the child's home state because she had lived there with the DeBoers, persons "acting as a parent," for over two years, fulfilling the PKPA's six-month residency requirement. The PKPA's purpose is to promote the child's best interests by ensuring custody decisions are made in the state with the most significant connection to the child. Given the child's residence in Michigan, Michigan was in the best position to decide. 2. Iowa's Failure to Conduct Best Interests Hearing: Iowa declined to exercise jurisdiction to consider the child's best interests when it denied the DeBoers' petition for rehearing on that issue. Under PKPA § 1738A(f)(2), if the original state (Iowa) declines to exercise jurisdiction to modify, another state (Michigan) can assume jurisdiction. The biological parents' fitness was determined, but the distinct issue of whether transferring custody from the DeBoers to the Schmidts was in the child's best interests was never actually litigated or decided by Iowa, thus res judicata should not apply to that specific issue. 3. Standing: The DeBoers have standing under the PKPA's definitions of "person acting as a parent" (as they had physical custody awarded by a court and claimed a right to custody) and "contestant" (as they claim a right to custody). The PKPA preempts inconsistent state standing laws, including Bowie v Arder, in interstate disputes. Furthermore, Michigan public policy, as evidenced in its adoption code and other statutes, often requires a "best interests" hearing in similar circumstances, especially when a putative father like Daniel Schmidt did not establish a custodial relationship or support the mother during pregnancy. 4. Child's Independent Rights: The child has an independent constitutional liberty interest in her established family relationship with the DeBoers, separate from her parents' rights, which should trigger a best interests hearing. The majority's decision effectively punishes the child for adult choices and risks serious psychological harm.

Analysis:

This case profoundly impacts the interpretation of interstate child custody laws, particularly the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The Michigan Supreme Court's strong emphasis on the PKPA's preemption power and its strict application of jurisdictional rules (home state, continuing jurisdiction) prioritizes national uniformity and the finality of custody judgments over individual state "best interests" analyses where the original state had proper jurisdiction. This decision solidifies that third parties face significant hurdles in establishing standing against natural parents absent a showing of unfitness, and it underscores the limits of a child's independent right to litigate custody disputes when biological parents are deemed fit. It will likely encourage strict adherence to PKPA's jurisdictional framework, potentially limiting the ability of courts in a child's current long-term residence to override prior state custody determinations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:

Query In Re Clausen (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.