Lenawee County court continues guardianship review after Pennsylvania recognition and placement denial
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A Lenawee County guardianship review was continued to April 6 after a Pennsylvania court filed an order recognizing the Michigan guardianship while a Northampton County agency declined a proposed placement and raised concerns about prior domestic violence and missing medical records; the judge directed further investigation and document exchange.
The Lenawee County Probate & Juvenile Court continued a guardianship review for a child identified as Ellie and scheduled further hearings for April 6 at 9 a.m. after receiving a recognition order and related materials from a Pennsylvania court.
A judge told the courtroom the Court of Common Pleas in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, filed a notice (Case No. 25-1525) registering and recognizing the Michigan probate court’s appointment of Tanya Guerin as plenary guardian of the person and registering that order in Pennsylvania. The judge said a copy of the Pennsylvania order and attachments were circulated to counsel and would be placed in the Michigan guardianship file.
Michael McFarland, identified in court as the attorney guardian lead, asked the court to take judicial notice of a letter from Northampton County Children, Youth and Family Services. According to McFarland, that agency completed an interstate study under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and "did not approve Ellie being with Tanya and Patrick Guerin," adding that "apparently, their standards are different than ours." He said the Pennsylvania agency noted prior domestic violence and mental health concerns and that some medical records appeared to be omitted.
The judge said the Pennsylvania filing appeared contingent on the Michigan order and warned that terminating Michigan jurisdiction could terminate guardianship authority in Pennsylvania. The judge told counsel he was "interested in allowing" McFarland to investigate "whether or not the guardianship remains appropriate" and directed that the matter be set for the already-scheduled abuse-and-neglect hearings on April 6 so the issues can be heard together.
Peter Winter, appearing for other counsel, had no objection to the court receiving the Pennsylvania letter and order as exhibits and confirmed those documents would be made part of the guardianship file for case 25-061NA. Court staff and counsel discussed obtaining any underlying Pennsylvania filings; Winter noted the court currently had the order but not the petition or supporting documents that formed the basis for Pennsylvania’s decision.
Tanya (transcript shows alternate spellings in the record) said the documentation in Pennsylvania was "the same exact documentation" that had been provided for the Michigan guardianship, including a psychological evaluation by Michelle Liska and an earlier Northampton County assessment by neuropsychologist Dan Medler. She also agreed to provide releases allowing the guardian ad litem to contact her treating physician; the guardian ad litem said he would include that information in his report.
The judge reserved the April 6, 9–11 a.m. slot to hear the guardianship matter together with overlapping abuse-and-neglect proceedings and instructed the parties to exchange documents and cooperate in scheduling telephone conferences to allow investigators and counsel to gather information before the continued hearing.
The court did not enter a final decision at the hearing; it admitted the Pennsylvania order and related letter into the Michigan file and ordered further investigation and document production ahead of the April 6 hearing.