Petition to terminate a child’s guardianship; MCL 700.5209(2); The law of the case doctrine; Designation as a “full” rather than “limited” guardianship; Motion for reconsideration

Holding that the trial court did not err in denying respondent-father’s petition to terminate his child’s guardianship, the court affirmed. This was the second appeal in the case. The “child’s mother filed for a limited guardianship placement plan for the child. At that time, the child’s biological father was unknown. In 2015 during a period of incarceration, testing established respondent as the child’s biological father. Later in 2015,” the child’s maternal aunt was appointed as her guardian and continued to be her guardian. Respondent asserted here that “the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider that he was excluded as a party when the guardianship placement plan was issued.” The court disagreed, noting that in the prior appeal, it rejected his challenge based “on his exclusion from the original petition and the guardianship placement plan[.]” The court concluded in the prior appeal that his “omission from the original petition and any failure to participate in a limited guardianship placement plan had no bearing on the trial court’s determination of the child’s best interests, MCL 700.5209(2)(b), despite any form order language.” The court was bound by that determination. Thus, “the trial court properly denied the petition to terminate the guardianship under the circumstances.” Respondent further contended the trial court erred in “designating the guardianship as ‘full’ rather than ‘limited’ on the order denying his petition to terminate the guardianship.” The court determined that this challenge did not entitle him to appellate relief. While the “trial court plainly erred” in doing so, the error did not “require reversal because it did not affect respondent’s substantial rights.” Finally, his procedural challenge related to the proof of service for the guardian’s annual reports did “not alter the substance of the trial court’s denial of the petition to terminate the guardianship; that a termination of the 12-year-old ward’s guardianship at that time would adversely impact the child’s mental health.”