Petition for guardianship of a child; MCL 700.5204(2)(b); In re Guardianship of Versalle; MCL 700.5213(2); MCL 700.5212; Parental permission; Deschaine v St Germain; Special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status under 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J); In re LFOC; In re Velasquez; The Child Abuse & Neglect Prevention Act; Michigan’s Child Protection Law; Michigan’s Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act; “Neglect” & “abandonment”; The Estates & Protected Individuals Code (EPIC)

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the guardianship petition without a proper basis and erred in failing to make factual findings on the issue of the child’s (BAM-L) SIJ status. Further, it concluded appointing petitioner as BAM-L’s guardian was required under MCL 700.5212 and 700.5213. And the record showed “there was evidence to establish each factual finding relevant to SIJ status by a preponderance of the evidence.” Thus, the court vacated the trial court’s order, appointed petitioner as guardian of BAM-L (his nephew), and entered an “order with special findings of fact to establish SIJ status for” BAM-L, who was born in Guatemala in 2006. His mother moved to the U.S. in 2014, leaving him with his grandparents. He entered the U.S. in 2022 and moved in with petitioner, who then sought to be appointed his guardian under MCL 700.5204(2)(b). BAM-L also nominated him as his guardian under MCL 700.5212. The evidence presented to “the trial court established that all three requirements under MCL 700.5204(2)(b) were satisfied and, therefore, petitioner was qualified to be appointed as guardian of BAM-L. Moreover, under MCL 700.5213(2), the trial court was required to make such an appointment if BAM-L’s welfare would be served by” it. The record indicated that his “welfare would be served by appointing petitioner as his guardian. Therefore, MCL 700.5213(2) required the trial court to make the appointment, and its failure to do constituted an abuse of discretion.” The same was true under MCL 700.5212. The court further found “that the trial court erred by refusing to make any factual findings on the issue of SIJ status.” The court exercised its “discretion to make SIJ-status findings on the basis of the lower court record, and adopt the authority provided by Velasquez to do so.” Three factual findings are required to obtain SIJ status. The first, “that BAM-L was declared dependent upon a juvenile court, is established by a preponderance of the evidence under appointment of petitioner as” BAM-L’s guardian. The second involved whether “BAM-L’s reunification with one or both of his parents is not viable because of neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis.” The court concluded “that, for all intents and purposes, BAM-L’s mother abandoned and neglected him.” Finally, as to the third finding, it applied EPIC’s best-interest factors and found “by a preponderance of the evidence, that BAM-L’s interests would not be served by returning to Guatemala” but rather by staying in the U.S.