## Facts

- Sixteen-year-old Claire Ryan left her parents’ home after conflict related to her parents’ disapproval of her boyfriend.
- Claire stayed with family friends and later with her boyfriend and his mother, Adele McGinn-Loomis, a deputy clerk in the same trial court.
- Claire’s parents arranged for her placement in a residential boarding school in Utah.
- The trial court entered an ex parte order authorizing law enforcement to return Claire to Michigan.
- An attorney, Mary Benedict, filed on Claire’s behalf a “Complaint for Return and Divorce from Parents,” and later sought appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL), emancipation, and relief based on alleged abuse/neglect.
- The emancipation and neglect-related filings lacked required statutory and rule-based supporting materials.
- The court appointed a GAL, dismissed the “divorce from parents” complaint, allowed amendment to seek emancipation and third-party guardianship, and ordered Claire placed in foster care without an evidentiary determination of parental unfitness.
- The parents moved to dismiss, challenging the court’s authority and the procedures used; Benedict then moved to dismiss without prejudice, and the trial court dismissed the matter without prejudice.
- The parents appealed, seeking review of the underlying orders and asserting violations of statutory limits and constitutional due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory authority to proceed on a minor’s “divorce from parents” complaint and related requests outside established emancipation or child-protective procedures.
2. Whether ex parte orders and foster-care placement, entered without proper notice, pleadings, and evidentiary findings regarding abuse, neglect, or unfitness, violated the parents’ due process rights.
3. Whether the manner in which the matter was initiated and advanced—including informal involvement of a deputy court clerk and an attorney purporting to represent a minor—complied with procedural requirements governing impartial adjudication.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s challenged orders.
- The court held the trial court lacked authority to base relief on a minor’s “divorce from parents” complaint, a cause of action not recognized by Michigan law.
- The court held the statutory prerequisites for invoking emancipation, neglect, and related jurisdiction were not satisfied because required supporting documentation and compliant pleadings were missing.
- The court held that placing Claire in foster care and otherwise intruding on parental custody without proper process violated the parents’ constitutional right to due process.
- The court concluded that the later dismissal without prejudice did not cure the unlawful deprivation already imposed and did not bar appellate review of the underlying orders.
- The court directed that any future proceedings affecting custody proceed only under proper statutory mechanisms and constitutional safeguards.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.
- State interference with parental custody requires due process, including notice, an opportunity to be heard, and procedures that produce legally sufficient findings supporting removal or restriction.
- Emancipation and child-protective (abuse/neglect) proceedings are statutory; courts may not bypass statutory prerequisites through ad hoc pleadings or informal processes.
- A minor generally lacks capacity to initiate nonstatutory actions to sever parental rights; “divorce from parents” is not an independent, legally recognized claim.
- Ex parte mechanisms and informal communications are improper substitutes for required pleadings, evidentiary support, and neutral adjudication when fundamental parental rights are at stake.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ruled that the trial court’s ex parte and nonstatutory handling of a minor’s attempt to separate from her parents—including foster-care placement without proper pleadings, notice, and findings—violated statutory limits and the parents’ due process rights, requiring reversal and any further action to proceed under established statutory procedures.


Ryan v. Ryan, 260 Mich. App. 315, 677 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)