COA 375181 IN RE JG Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/14/2026

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
In re JG.
KRISTINA RUTKAUSKAS,
Petitioner-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
January 14, 2026
10:24 AM
v No. 375181
Kent Probate Court
JG, LC No. 22-930892-MI
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: CAMERON, P.J., and KOROBKIN and BAZZI, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the probate court’s initial order for mental-health treatment.
She asserts the probate court erred when it failed to provide her with a foreign language interpreter.
We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Respondent is a native Spanish speaker but also speaks English. Respondent has a history
of mental-health proceedings, but there is no indication that respondent ever requested or used an
interpreter at any point in these proceedings. The present case stems from a petition requesting
involuntary mental-health treatment for respondent because she was suffering from paranoia and
delusions.
At the hearing on the petition, respondent testified on her own behalf, in English.
Respondent answered every question posed to her on both direct- and cross-examination. Her
responses were appropriate and did not suggest any inability to understand the questions asked.
The probate court found there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent required
treatment under MCL 330.1401(1)(a) and (c) and committed her to combined hospitalization and
assisted outpatient treatment. This appeal followed.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because respondent did not raise the issue of having an interpreter during the proceedings
below, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See In re MAT, ___ Mich App ___, ___;
___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 369255); slip op at 2-3. Accordingly, we review respondent’s
unpreserved argument for plain error affecting her substantial rights. Id. Under the plain-error
standard, “a party must show that an error occurred, that it was clear or obvious, and that it caused
prejudice, i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. at ___; slip op at 3
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Respondent argues that the probate court denied her right to a foreign language interpreter
because it failed to determine whether she needed an interpreter. We disagree.
Foreign language interpreters play a critical role in “facilitating meaningful access to
justice for those whose English skills are lacking.” In re Guardianship of DRRR, ___ Mich
App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 372523); slip op at 5. MCR 1.111 governs the
appointment of foreign language interpreters. Id. at 4. Specifically, MCR 1.111(B) provides, in
relevant part:
(B) Appointment of a Foreign Language Interpreter.
(1) If a person requests a foreign language interpreter and the court
determines such services are necessary for the person to meaningfully participate
in the case or court proceeding, or on the court’s own determination that foreign
language interpreter services are necessary for a person to meaningfully participate
in the case or court proceeding, the court shall appoint a foreign language
interpreter for that person if the person is a witness testifying in a civil or criminal
case or court proceeding or is a party.
* * *
(3) In order to determine whether the services of a foreign language
interpreter are necessary for a person to meaningfully participate under subrule
(B)(1), the court shall rely upon a request by an LEP[1] individual (or a request made
on behalf of an LEP individual) or prior notice in the record. If no such requests
have been made, the court may conduct an examination of the person on the record
to determine whether such services are necessary. [Emphasis added.]
1 “LEP” is not defined by the statute, but the Supreme Court commentary to the rule’s 2013
adoption defines “LEP” as “Limited English Proficiency[.]” MCR 1.111, Comments of Supreme
Court to 2013 Adoption. See also Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed) (defining
“LEP” as “limited English proficiency” or “limited English proficient.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
Respondent was subject to an identical mental-health proceeding in September 2023,
during which she made no request for an interpreter. Thus, she was familiar with the complexity
of the mental-health proceedings before the hearing in this case. On appeal, respondent concedes
that neither she nor her counsel indicated a need for an interpreter at any point. Accordingly, the
probate court had discretion to examine respondent “to determine whether such services [were]
necessary.” Id. But there is no indication that the probate court had any reason to suspect such
services were necessary. Respondent’s interactions with the probate court did not suggest that she
lacked English proficiency. She testified and answered each question posed to her, clearly stated
that she had never harmed anyone or herself, described her experiences with police, medical
professionals, and the people who were allegedly stalking her and abusing her children, and stated
her beliefs regarding the necessity of mental-health treatment—all in English. Therefore, there is
no evidence that respondent was unable to meaningfully participate in the proceeding to the extent
that the probate court should have appointed an interpreter.2
Affirmed.
/s/ Thomas C. Cameron
/s/ Daniel S. Korobkin
/s/ Mariam S. Bazzi
2 Respondent also alleges that her counsel was ineffective because he failed to request an
interpreter on her behalf and he never asked her if she wanted an interpreter. We decline to
consider this argument because respondent waived it by failing to include it in her statement of
questions presented. English v Blue Cross Shield of Mich, 263 Mich App 449, 459; 688 NW2d
523 (2004); see also MCR 7.212(C)(5). Respondent additionally claims that she did not
knowingly or voluntarily waive her right to an interpreter, but the court rule only addresses waiver
if the right has been “established under subrule (B)(1)[.]” MCR 1.111(C). Because no such right
was established, respondent’s waiver argument is meritless. Id.

-- 3 of 3 --