Family court jurisdiction; MCL 712A.2(a)(1); People v Thenghkam; Waiver of jurisdiction; MCL 712A.4(1); Due process; Prejudice; Delay

The court held that the trial court did not err by waiving jurisdiction over respondent. As a juvenile (14 years old), respondent was charged in a delinquency petition with CSC II and accosting a child for immoral purposes for allegedly sexually assaulting his niece, who was 5 years old at the time. At the Phase I hearing, the trial court found that petitioner established probable cause that respondent committed offenses that would be felonies if committed by an adult. At the Phase II hearing, it found that the interests of the public and the juvenile would be served by granting a waiver of jurisdiction to the court of general criminal jurisdiction. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s argument that “it violates his constitutional right to due process to be treated as an adult for a crime that he allegedly committed as a juvenile, when the chief reason for treating him as an adult was that he aged out of any programming available in the juvenile court system.” First, the “record supports that respondent was 14 years old, such that the waiver process under MCL 712A.4 was appropriate.” Second, the trial court’s analysis of the six statutory criteria at the Phase II hearing was appropriate. As to factor (a), “despite the lack of a weapon in this case,” the trial court did err by finding “that this sex-based crime against a young child was ‘a very serious offense’ that offset respondent’s lack of prior record and related lack of prior programming.” As to factor (b), because the court defers to the special ability of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses, it did not err in its finding regarding respondent’s culpability on the basis of AS’s credibility. As to factors (e) and (f), respondent did “not dispute that there are no programming or dispositional options for him.” As such, “the trial court fulfilled its mandate to consider all six specified criteria, and none of its findings create a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Finally, the court found that respondent’s due process rights were not violated, noting he was subject to the proper procedure. “Respondent’s age at the time of the charges set up a dismiss-or-waive dichotomy, but this is the process established by the laws and cases discussed. Therefore, neither the reporting delay nor the subsequent waiver violated respondent’s right to due process, and the trial court did not err by waiving its jurisdiction over respondent.” Affirmed.