IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF AB

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF AB
Docket No. 372382
LC No. 2013-352608-GM
James Robert Redford
Presiding Judge
Michael J. Riordan
Mariam Saad Bazzi
Judges
This Court’s August 20, 2025 opinion and order vacated the trial court’s order granting the
petition of appellee to terminate the minor guardianship over her daughter (AB) and remanded to that
court, while retaining jurisdiction, with instructions to render additional factual findings with respect to
the best-interests factors set forth in MCL 700.5101(a)(i), (iii), (v), (vi), and (vii). On remand, the trial
court considered the parties’ respective arguments and subsequently delivered an opinion from the bench
on December 19, 2025, addressing these five statutory factors and reaffirming its earlier order terminating
the guardianship.
Having reviewed the newly created record on remand, including the transcript of the
December 19, 2025 hearing, we AFFIRM the trial court’s findings of fact that were the subject of our
remand order. See In re Redd Guardianship, 321 Mich App 398, 403; 909 NW2d 289 (2017). With
regard to MCL 700.5101(a)(i) and (vii), the trial court extensively discussed the history of the case and
the relevant facts for each of those two factors, and none of those findings were clearly erroneous, nor
were its ultimate findings that the factors each weighed equally between the parties. With regard to MCL
700.5101(a)(iii), the trial court correctly reassessed the factor without reference to education, a matter that
is properly considered in the context of MCL 700.5101(a)(ii). Further, with regard to MCL
700.5101(a)(v), the trial court expressly found that the factor weighed equally, a finding that was not
necessarily apparent in its original decision, and that is not clearly erroneous on review. Finally, with
regard to MCL 700.5101(a)(vi), the trial court again found that the factor weighed equally, and its analysis
indicates no factual or legal errors.
Therefore, having found no clear error as to the five statutory factors at issue, and there
being no other factual or legal error apparent to us, we AFFIRM the trial court’s decision from the bench
to terminate the guardianship. However, we note that the trial court’s December 23, 2025 order addressing
visitation that has been transmitted to us does not expressly terminate the guardianship. Accordingly, to
the extent that the trial court did not enter an order to that effect on or after December 19, 2025, we

-- 1 of 2 --

REMAND this case to that court to complete that ministerial task of terminating the guardianship. We do
not retain jurisdiction.
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on
Date

-- 2 of 2 --