COA 376157 IN RE CARSON MINORS Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 5/11/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 2026
9:50 AM
In re CARSON, Minors.
No. 376157
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2025-000389-NA
Before: BAZZI, P.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right an order removing her children, JDC, BJC, JCC, and JXC,
from her care and custody. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
The trial court removed the children from respondent’s care after a continued preliminary
hearing. However, BJC, JCC, and JXC were returned to respondent’s care while this appeal was
pending, and JDC turned 18 years old after the trial court removed her from respondent’s care and
custody.
“Whether a case is moot is a threshold question that we address before reaching the
substantive issues of a case.” Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 314; 917 NW2d 685 (2018).
“An issue is moot when a subsequent event makes it impossible for this Court to grant relief.” Id.
The mootness doctrine is subject to several exceptions. Generally, “[w]here a court’s adverse
judgment may have collateral legal consequences for a party, the issue is not necessarily moot.”
In re Detmer/Beaudry, 321 Mich App 49, 56; 910 NW2d 318 (2017) (quotation marks, citation,
and alteration omitted). Another exception to the mootness doctrine exists “[w]hen a case presents
an issue of public significance, and disputes involving the issue are likely to recur, yet evade
judicial review . . . .” Id. In those cases, “it is appropriate to reach the merits of the issue even
when the case is otherwise moot.” Id.
In the present case, the issue raised on appeal is moot. BJC, JCC, and JXC were returned
to respondent’s care while this appeal was pending, and JDC turned 18 years old after the trial
court removed her from respondent’s care and custody. Thus, we cannot provide respondent with
her requested remedy. We see no applicable exception to the mootness doctrine to address the

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
merits of this appeal, and respondent has provided none, despite having an opportunity to do so.
See In re Carson Minors, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 17, 2026
(Docket No. 376157) (inviting the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of
mootness). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Dismissed.
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi
/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-- 2 of 2 --