Facts
- Justin Mayberry, a deaf child, was placed in the licensed foster home of Alfred and Carol Pryor after removal from his mother’s custody by probate court order.
- On November 18, 1979, while living with the Pryors and about four years old, Justin was allegedly attacked by a German shepherd dog while sitting on the Pryors’ front porch.
- Justin allegedly could not cry out for help due to deafness and communication limitations.
- Justin suffered serious injuries, including permanent brain damage, and was later placed in a residential facility due to resulting disabilities.
- Justin’s mother sued the Pryors for negligent supervision and also sued the dog’s owners; the claims against the dog’s owners were severed and remained pending.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Pryors, accepting their argument that foster parents could invoke parental immunity.
Issues
- Whether foster parents may invoke the defense of parental immunity in a negligence action brought by or on behalf of a foster child.
- If so, whether negligent supervision falls within the parental immunity doctrine’s protected sphere.
- If so, whether the reasonableness of the alleged parental conduct is a question of law or fact.
Decision
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated summary judgment for the Pryors.
- The Court held foster parents cannot invoke parental immunity and therefore may be liable for negligent conduct proximately causing injury to a foster child.
- Because foster parents could not claim parental immunity, the Court did not decide whether negligent supervision fits within any residual immunity exception or whether reasonableness is for judge or jury.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the negligence claim without an immunity bar.
Legal Principles
- Parental immunity in Michigan is disfavored and survives, if at all, only in narrow limits recognized for natural or adoptive parents.
- Foster care is a temporary, state-supervised, and regulated placement; the foster parent–child relationship is contractual and qualitatively different from the traditional parent-child relationship.
- Courts should not expand residual parental immunity to new categories of caretakers absent legislative direction.
- Foster parents are subject to ordinary tort principles for negligent supervision or care of a foster child.
Conclusion
The court refused to extend parental immunity to foster parents, permitting a foster child’s negligence claim to proceed against foster parents on the merits under standard negligence rules.