in Re Piland Minors ( 2019 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
May 23, 2019 Bridget M. McCormack,
Chief Justice
David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem
157918
Stephen J. Markman
Brian K. Zahra
Richard H. Bernstein
Elizabeth T. Clement
SC: 157918 Megan K. Cavanagh,
In re PILAND, Minors. COA: 340754 Justices
Ingham CC Family Division:
17-000591-NA
_______________________________________/
On April 10, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to
appeal the May 15, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal,
we AFFIRM the holding of the Court of Appeals that MCL 722.634 applies to child
protective proceedings. We also agree with the respondents that, in a proceeding under
MCL 712A.2(b)(1), the availability of an instruction based on MCL 722.634 does not
depend on whether the respondents’ failure to provide specified medical treatment for a
child is characterized as an act of neglect or an act of refusal. We nevertheless VACATE
that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeals stating that “the trial court must instruct
the jury that ‘[a] parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious belief who
thereby does not provide medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be
considered a negligent parent or guardian.’ ” (Emphasis added.) This part of the Court
of Appeals’ judgment was premature, because the respondents’ entitlement to a jury
instruction based on MCL 722.634 depends on the evidence that is ultimately presented
at the respondents’ adjudication trial. See, e.g., Camden Fire Ins Co v Kaminski, 352
Mich. 507, 511 (1958); see also MCR 2.512. We REMAND this case to the Ingham
Circuit Court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must provide an
instruction that is consistent with MCL 722.634 if such an instruction is requested by the
respondents and if a rational view of the evidence supports the conclusion that the failure
to provide medical treatment was based on the respondents’ legitimate practice of their
religious beliefs.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
May 23, 2019
s0521
Clerk