MICHIGAN JUDICIAL INSTITUTE © 2026
Child Protective Proceedings Benchbook—Fourth Edition
A Guide to Abuse & Neglect
•The Honorable Megan K. Cavanagh, Chief Justice
•The Honorable Noah P. Hood, MJI Liaison Justice
•The Honorable Brian K. Zahra, Justice
•The Honorable Richard H. Bernstein, Justice
•The Honorable Elizabeth M. Welch, Justice
•The Honorable Kyra Harris Bolden, Justice
•The Honorable Kimberly A. Thomas, Justice
•The Honorable Thomas P. Boyd, State Court Administrator
•Elizabeth Rios-Jones, Deputy State Court Administrator
•Alicia Moon, Supreme Court General Counsel
•Daniel Brubaker, Supreme Court Chief Operating Officer
•Elizabeth Kingston-Miller, Supreme Court Clerk
Michigan Judicial Institute Staff
•John R. Nizol, Director
•Amanda Clark, Judicial Education Analyst
•Anne M. DeMarco, Program Assistant
•Rachael Drenovsky, Learning Center Coordinator
•Amy Feinauer, Program Assistant
•Aaron D. Hanke, Research Attorney
•Michael Hennessy, E-Learning Instructional Designer and
LMS Administrator
•Phoenix Hummel, Publications Manager
•Amanda Joseph, MCJE Analyst
•Keeley Kerrins, MCJE Administrative Assistant
•Heather Leidi, Operations Specialist
•Adam Pfau, Education Analyst
•Lindsay E. Poetz, Research Attorney Specialist
•Janaya Royal, Administrative Specialist
•Lisa Schmitz, Research Attorney
•Rebekah L. T. Sellers, Research Attorney
•Peter C. Stathakis, Program Manager
•Prestina Whitlow, Administrative Assistant
This fourth edition was initially published in 2012, and the text has been revised, reordered, and updated through September 23, 2026. This benchbook is not intended to be an authoritative statement by the Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court regarding any of the substantive issues discussed.
The Michigan Judicial Institute endeavors to present accurate, binding precedent when discussing substantive legal issues. “The essence of the common law doctrine of precedent or stare decisis is that the rule of the case creates a binding legal precept.” Hudson v Dep’t of Corrections, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Maintaining consistency in the law is one of the primary benefits of stare decisis, as it provides the public with some level of predictability in how the courts have interpreted the law.” Plachta v Plachta, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2026). Generally, trial courts “must follow the published decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.” People v Metamora Water Serv, Inc, 276 Mich App 376, 382 (2007).
Negative subsequent history. Several cases in this book have been reversed, vacated or overruled in part and/or to the extent that they contained a specific holding on one issue or another. While a case that has been fully reversed, vacated, or overruled is no longer binding precedent, it is less clear when an opinion is not reversed, vacated or overruled in its entirety. Some cases state that “an overruled proposition in a case is no reason to ignore all other holdings in the case.” People v Carson, 220 Mich App 662, 672 (1996). See also Stein v Home-Owners Ins Co, 303 Mich App 382, 389 (2013) (distinguishing between reversals in their entirety and reversals in part); Graham v Foster, 500 Mich 23, 31 n 4 (2017) (because the Supreme Court vacated a portion of the Court of Appeals decision, “that portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion [had] no precedential effect and the trial court [was] not bound by its reasoning”). However, other cases provide that a “decision that has been reversed on other grounds has no precedential value.” Dunn v Detroit Inter-Ins Exch, 254 Mich App 256, 262 (2002), citing Taylor v Kurapati, 236 Mich App 315 (1999). See also Horace v City of Pontiac, 456 Mich 744, 754–755 (1998) (holding that where the Supreme Court reverses a Court of Appeals decision on one issue and does not specifically address a second issue in the case, “no rule of law remain[s] from the Court of Appeals decision”). Note that Stein specifically distinguished its holding from the Dunn holding because the precedent discussed in Dunn involved a reversal in its entirety while the precedent discussed in Stein involved a reversal in part. Stein, 303 Mich App at 389.
Because it may be unclear under certain circumstances how subsequent case history may affect the precedential value of a particular opinion, trial courts should proceed with caution when relying on cases that have negative subsequent history. The analysis presented in a case that is not binding may still be persuasive. See generally, Dunn, 254 Mich App at 264-266.
United States Supreme Court. Michigan courts are bound by “our state Supreme Court precedent, unless the United States Supreme Court has addressed a federal constitutional question.” People v Beasley, 239 Mich App 548, 559 (2000). “A plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court, however, is not binding precedent.” Id., citing Texas v Brown, 460 US 730, 737 (1983).
Federal appellate and district courts. “Cases from foreign jurisdictions, which are not binding, can be persuasive.” Bazzy v Citizens Ins Co of America, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025) (cleaned up). Accordingly, state courts are not bound by the decisions of lower federal courts construing federal law, and Michigan courts “are free to follow or reject their authority.” People v Gillam, 479 Mich 253, 261 (2007).
Michigan Supreme Court. A Michigan “Supreme Court opinion becomes binding precedent for intermediate appellate and trial courts at the time a signed opinion is date-stamped and filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, unless” the opinion “specifically states that the opinion is effective at a different date.” Riley v Northland Geriatric Center, 425 Mich 668, 678 (1986). “‘The clear rule in Michigan is that a majority of the [Michigan Supreme] Court must agree on a ground for decision in order to make that binding precedent for future cases.’” People v Sexton, 458 Mich 43, 65 (1998), quoting People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155, 170 (1973). See MCR 7.315(A) (“Except for affirmance of action by a lower court or tribunal by even division of the justices, a decision of the Court must be made by concurrence of a majority of the justices voting.”). “Plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices participating agree as to the reasoning are not an authoritative interpretation binding . . . under the doctrine of stare decisis.” Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105, 109 (1976). However, “a [plurality] decision rendered by less than four justices who nevertheless constitute a majority of a legally constituted quorum is binding on the Court of Appeals and the trial courts.” Id. at 106. “‘If there is merely a majority for a particular result, then the parties to the case are bound by the judgment but the case is not authority beyond the immediate parties.’” Sexton, 458 Mich at 65, quoting Anderson, 389 Mich at 170. In other words, “plurality opinions in which no majority of the participating justices agree with respect to the reasoning for the holding are not generally considered authoritative interpretations that are binding under the doctrine of stare decisis.” Auto Club Group Ins Co v Booth, 289 Mich App 606, 613 (2010).
For information regarding the precedential value of an order or judgment issued by the Michigan Supreme Court, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Appeals & Opinions Benchbook, Section 1.4(B).
Michigan Court of Appeals. “A published opinion of the Court of Appeals has precedential effect under the rule of stare decisis.”
For more information regarding the precedential nature of Court of Appeals opinions, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Appeals & Opinions Benchbook, Section 1.4(C).
Work on the fourth edition of this benchbook was overseen by an Editorial Advisory Committee facilitated by former MJI Publications Manager Sarah Roth and former MJI Research Attorney Corrie Schmidt-Parker, who revised this edition of the benchbook. Former Mary Ann McDaid Mink, MJI Multimedia Specialist, and Amy Feinauer, MJI Program Assistant, also assisted in the publication of this benchbook.
MJI gratefully acknowledges the time, helpful advice, and expertise contributed by the Committee members, who are as follows:
•The Honorable Robert J. Butts
Cheboygan County Probate Court
•The Honorable Susan L. Dobrich
Cass County Probate Court
•The Honorable John A. Hohman, Jr.
Monroe County Probate Court
•Ms. Jennifer J. Kitzmiller
Attorney Referee
Berrien County Trial Court
•Ms. Jodi M. Latuszek
Management Analyst Child Welfare Services
State Court Administrative Office, State of Michigan
•Mr. Tobin L. Miller
Senior Executive Assistant
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Legal Services
•Ms. Jenifer L. Pettibone
Manager
Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Compliance Division
•Ms. Maribeth D. Preston,
Management Analyst Child Welfare Services
State Court Administrative Office, State of Michigan
•Mr. Frank E. Vandervort
Clinical Professor of Law
Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Michigan Law School
The first and revised editions of the Child Protective Proceedings Benchbook were funded by the Court Improvement Program, the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). The Michigan Judicial Institute (MJI) thanks the Court Improvement Program and SCAO for their generous support. Tobin L. Miller, former MJI Publications/Program Manager, authored the previous edition of this benchbook.
Although this benchbook is primarily intended for use by judges and referees presiding over child protective proceedings in the Family Division of Circuit Court, it also contains information useful to all participants in the child protection system in Michigan. It is hoped that this benchbook will be of use to anyone who participates in that system, and that this benchbook will help those dedicated to improving the lives of Michigan’s children.
The Michigan Judicial Institute was created in 1977 by the Michigan Supreme Court. MJI is responsible for providing educational programs and written materials for Michigan judges and court personnel. In addition to formal seminar offerings, MJI is engaged in a broad range of publication activities, services, and projects that are designed to enhance the professional skills of all those serving in the Michigan court system. MJI welcomes comments and suggestions. Please send them to Michigan Judicial Institute, Hall of Justice, P.O. Box 30048, Lansing, MI 48909. (517) 373-7171.