8.13​Ordering Parent of Juvenile Offender to Pay Restitution

“If the court determines that a juvenile is or will be unable to pay all of the restitution ordered, after notice to the juvenile’s parent or parents and an opportunity for the parent or parents to be heard, the court may order the parent or parents having supervisory responsibility for the juvenile at the time of the acts upon which an order of restitution is based to pay any portion of the restitution ordered that is outstanding. An order under this subsection does not relieve the juvenile of his or her obligation to pay restitution as ordered, but the amount owed by the juvenile shall be offset by any amount paid by his or her parent.”⁸¹ MCL 780.766(15); MCL 780.794(15). See also MCL 712A.30(15) and MCL 712A.18(7), corresponding in the Juvenile Code provisions.

“In determining whether to order the juvenile’s supervisory parent to pay restitution under [MCL 780.794(15)], the court shall consider the financial resources of the juvenile’s supervisory parent and the other factors specified in [MCL 780.794(16)].” MCL 780.795(1). See also MCL 712A.31(1), the corresponding Juvenile Code provision.

“[T]he [J]uvenile [C]ode does not limit the amount of restitution for which a supervisory parent may be held liable.” In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App 55, 66-67 (2005) (rejecting the appellant-supervisory parent’s argument that MCL 712A.30 “should be read in pari materia with the parental liability act (PLA), MCL 600.2913, to engraft onto the [J]uvenile [C]ode the PLA’s limitation of $2,500 liability in civil court actions[,]” and noting that the “specific provision for a setoff [under MCL 712A.30(9) and MCL 780.794(9)] clearly recognizes that the statutory scheme for restitution is separate and independent of any damages that may be sought in a civil proceeding[]”).⁸²

A.​Restitution Order Issued Against Juvenile Offender’s Parent

“If the court orders a parent to pay restitution under [MCL 780.766(15) or MCL 780.794(15)], the court shall take into account the parent’s financial resources and the burden that the payment of restitution will impose, with due regard to any other moral or legal financial obligations the parent may have. If a parent is required to pay restitution under [MCL 780.766(15) or MCL 780.794(15)], the court shall provide for payment to be made in specified installments and within a specified period of time.” MCL 780.766(16); MCL 780.794(16). See also MCL 712A.30(16), the corresponding Juvenile Code provision.

B.​Burden of Proof

“The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the juvenile’s supervisory parent and the other factors specified in [MCL 780.794(16)] shall be on the supervisory parent.” MCL 780.795(4). See MCL 712A.31(4), the corresponding Juvenile Code provision.

C.​Parent May Petition for Modification of Restitution

“A parent who has been ordered to pay restitution under [MCL 780.766(15) or MCL 780.794(15)] may petition the court for a modification of the amount of restitution owed by the parent or for a cancellation of any unpaid portion of the parent’s obligation. The court shall cancel all or part of the parent’s obligation due if the court determines that payment of the amount due will impose a manifest hardship on the parent and if the court also determines that modifying the method of payment will not impose a manifest hardship on the victim.” MCL 780.766(17); MCL 780.794(17). See also MCL 712A.30(17), the corresponding Juvenile Code provision.

D.​Constitutional Challenges

1.​No Due Process Violation

Because the Juvenile Code provisions, MCL 712A.30(15)-(17),⁸³ “which, together, provide authority for and limitations on imposing payment of restitution on the supervisory parent of a juvenile offender[,]” . . . bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective,” the supervisory parent’s due process rights are not violated. In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App at 68-70 (finding that there was no violation of the appellant-supervisory parent’s due process rights because “[MCL 712A.30(15)] does not impose liability solely on the basis of familial relationship[, but rather] . . . reasonably imposes liability on the parent responsible for supervising the child[;]” “although there is no statutory limitation on the amount of restitution, under [MCL 712A.30(16)], a court must consider the parent’s financial resources, the burden of the payment of restitution, and any other moral or legal financial obligations that the parent may have[;]” and MCL 712A.30(17)] mandates that the court cancel all or part of the parent’s obligation if payment of the amount due will impose a manifest hardship on the parent[]”).

2.​No Bill of Attainder Violation

“The Michigan Legislature is prohibited from enacting bills of attainder. US Const, art I, § 10, cl 1; Const 1963, art 1, § 10. A legislative act that determines guilt and inflicts punishment on an identifiable group of individuals without the protections of a judicial trial is a bill of attainder.” In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App at 72.

“[T]he burdens placed on [supervisory] parents by MCL 712A.30 do not make those burdens punishment within the meaning of the proscriptions against bills of attainder.” In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App at 73 (noting that “the mere fact that harm is inflicted by the government does not make it punishment; there may be reasons other than punishment for a deprivation[]”).⁸⁴ Specifically, the In re McEvoy Court held:

“A determination whether a statute inflicts forbidden punishment implicates three specific inquiries: (1) whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment; (2) whether the statute, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably furthers nonpunitive legislative purposes; and (3) whether the legislative record evinces a congressional intent to punish. Applying this analysis, we conclude that the burdens placed on parents by MCL 712A.30 do not make those burdens punishment within the meaning of the proscriptions against bills of attainder.

The challenged statutory provisions for restitution do not fall within the historical meaning of legislative punishment and are not validly characterized as punishment in the constitutional sense. The statutory enactments at issue[, MCL 712A.30(15)-(17),] were designed to protect the rights of crime victims and they underscore the compensatory nature of restitution in Michigan. These laws authorize the payment of restitution because the victims of cries have suffered significant losses. The fact that a restitution order is intended to cause ‘financial pain’ does not transform the restitution order into a primarily penal sanction.

Moreover, [MCL 712A.30] furthers nonpunitive legislative purposes. . . . [T]he Legislature’s enactments providing for restitution ‘were intended to enable victims to be compensated fairly for their suffering at the hands of convicted offenders.’ . . . Authorizing courts to hold supervisory parents secondarily accountable for restitution not only furthers the goal of making innocent victims whole, but also promotes increased parental supervision in society in general.

The statute incorporates provisions to mitigate any excessive financial burden imposed on parents through protections in [MCL 712A.30(16)] and [MCL 712A.30(17)]. These subsections temper any potentially harsh ramifications of the statute and mandate that a court cancel all or part of the ordered restitution if the order imposes a manifest hardship on the parents. . . .

Given the above factors, the law must be held to be an act of nonpunitive legislative policymaking. Unless an enactment is punitive in its purpose and effect, there is no bill of attainder. [MCL 712A.30] does not constitute a bill of attainder.” In re McEvoy, 267 Mich App at 73-74 (internal citations omitted).