Issues: Claims under §§ 1983 and 1985 related to the adoption of two
children and the alleged denial of due process; Facial and as-
applied challenges to the constitutionality of MCL 710.45 and MCL
710.24a; Standing; Issue preclusion; Whether plaintiffs sufficiently
alleged a tangible personal injury; Subject matter jurisdiction;
Whether the defendants-circuit courts and circuit judges had
Eleventh Amendment immunity; The Rooker-Feldman doctrine; Howard v.
Whitbeck; Catz v. Chalker; The domestic relations exception to
federal jurisdiction; Conspiracy under § 1983 to deprive plaintiffs
of their due process rights; Abstention; Anti-injunction Act;
Conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their civil rights under § 1985;
Habeas corpus

Court: U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan

Case Name: Smith v. Oakland County Circuit Court

e-Journal Number: 25215

Judge(s): Borman



The plaintiffs-Smiths, as adoptive parents whose children were
removed from them on April 17, 2003, without a hearing, and who were
never alleged to be, much less proven to be, unfit parents, had
standing to sue to assert their federal constitutional right to due
process after the adoption was overturned and the children were
taken away.

The case revolves around two minor children, sisters who
became available for adoption due to tragic events occurring in
their biological family. The case also involves two other families,
the Smith family of Clinton County (plaintiffs), and the Cromwell
family of Oakland County (defendants-Cromwell), both seeking to
adopt the sisters.

On March 17, 2003, Clinton County Family Court
Judge Robertson issued orders of adoption of the sisters by the
Smiths.

The orders were subsequently revoked by two court orders,
both of which were issued without notice to the sisters' then-
parents, the Smiths. Oakland County Family Court Judge Pezzetti
issued the first order on April 12, 2003; the second order was
issued by the Clinton County judge who had ordered the adoptions to
the Smiths a month earlier.

Plaintiffs alleged their due process
rights were violated based on the failure to be noticed and/or
provided an opportunity to attend the hearings resulting in the loss
of their children, and challenged the constitutionality of MCL
710.45 and MCL 710.24a.

The court granted the defendants-Oakland
County and Clinton County Circuit Courts' motions to dismiss based
on Eleventh Amendment immunity, and granted Oakland County Judge
Anderson's motion to dismiss because there was no evidence her
conduct violated the Smiths' due process rights.

The court denied
the motions to dismiss by Oakland County Circuit Judge Pezzetti and
Clinton County Circuit Judge Sullivan (vice Judge Roberson) because
they were not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and also
denied the Cromwell-defendants' motion to dismiss.



Full Text Opinion can be found at
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/120304.html#7