NCJ Number
203693
Date Published
April 2003
Length
52 pages
Annotation
Highlights of this 2002 Annual Report of the Michigan Supreme Court include trial court reform, efforts to protect children, the creation of a statewide judicial computer network, the historic opening of the Michigan Hall of Justice and the Hall of Justice Learning Center, expansion of State therapeutic courts, and improvements to the courts' Web site, as well as statistics on State courts' activities and caseloads.
Abstract
On March 7, 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court recommended to the governor and the speaker of the house that the legislature permit trial court consolidation on a "local option" basis. The Supreme Court also urged the legislature to address with "some urgency" the practice of cross-assigning probate judges to the family division of circuit court. In December 2002 the legislature passed and the governor signed two bills designed to implement these recommendations. Also, in 2002 the Office of Child Support and the Friends of the Court implemented a new process for matching parents who failed to pay support with their bank accounts. Other improvements were also made in the State's Child Support Enforcement System. Child protection measures were improved with the Supreme Court's issuing of an administrative order that directed all circuit courts to develop a review plan for neglect and abuse cases in which placement children were reported missing. In the fourth quarter of 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court began Webcasting that enables court staff throughout Michigan to view educational seminars at the Hall of Justice Conference Center. Other new Web site features were also implemented. The Judicial Network Project has focused on building the communication infrastructure that will link each trial court to the State network. Progress in the development of therapeutic courts has focused on drug treatment courts, family drug courts, and teen courts. In the area of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the Supreme Court recently amended court rules to provide parties with even greater access to ADR processes, particularly mediation. Following an executive summary of judicial activity and caseload, statistics are presented for the State Supreme Court, court of appeals, circuit courts, probate court, district court, and municipal court.