Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1628 (2026)
Qualifications of guardian; preference.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
MENTAL HEALTH CODE
Act 258 of 1974
330.1628 Qualifications of guardian; preference.
Sec. 628.
(1) The court may appoint as guardian of an individual with a developmental disability any suitable individual or agency, public or private, including a private association capable of conducting an active guardianship program for an individual with a developmental disability. The court shall not appoint the department of mental health as guardian or any other agency, public or private, that is directly providing services to the individual, unless no other suitable individual or agency can be identified. In such instances, guardianship by the provider shall only continue until such time as a more suitable individual or agency can be appointed.
(2) Before the appointment, the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference indicated shall be given due consideration.
History: 1974, Act 258, Eff. Aug. 6, 1975 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 527, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1978 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 290, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Wayne Cnty. Prob. Judge, 261 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Wayne Cnty. Prob. Judge, 261 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “" In addition, § 628 of the act, MCLA 330.1628(2); MSA 14.800(628) provides: "Prior to the appointment, the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the mentally retarded person concerning his preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference…”
In Re Guardianship of Is (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellant argues that the trial court’s reasoning for removal is improper because it focused on the appellant’s “suitability” to serve as a guardian under MCL 330.1628, as opposed to abiding by MCL 330.”
In Re Guardianship of Ammb (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Bomba asks that [AMMB] advise the Court of her living preferences on the record by testimony, her request is denied under MCL 330.1628. Subsection provides that the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the…”
In Re Neal, 584 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “…consideration” to the developmentally disabled person’s preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian. MCL 330.1628(2); MSA 14.800(628)(2).”
In Re Guardianship of Zachary Harley Davidson Imbirowicz (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “(2) Before the appointment, the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference indicated shall be given due consideration.”
In Re Guardianship of Anna-Marie Margaret Bazakis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Before doing so, “the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference indicated shall be given due consideration.”
In Re Guardianship of Br (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Under MCL 330.1628(2), the trial court must make reasonable efforts to question the respondent as to his or her preference for who should be appointed guardian before appointing a guardian, and give the respondent’s expressed preference “due consideration.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1628(1) — 2 cases
In Re Guardianship of Anna-Marie Margaret Bazakis (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Before doing so, “the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference indicated shall be given due consideration.”
In Re Guardianship of Is (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellant argues that the trial court’s reasoning for removal is improper because it focused on the appellant’s “suitability” to serve as a guardian under MCL 330.1628, as opposed to abiding by MCL 330.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1628(2) — 7 cases
Michigan Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Wayne Cnty. Prob. Judge, 261 N.W.2d 60 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “" In addition, § 628 of the act, MCLA 330.1628(2); MSA 14.800(628) provides: "Prior to the appointment, the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the mentally retarded person concerning his preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference…”
In Re Neal, 584 N.W.2d 654 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “…consideration” to the developmentally disabled person’s preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian. MCL 330.1628(2); MSA 14.800(628)(2).”
In Re Guardianship of Ammb (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “Bomba asks that [AMMB] advise the Court of her living preferences on the record by testimony, her request is denied under MCL 330.1628. Subsection provides that the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the…”
In Re Guardianship of Is (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “Appellant argues that the trial court’s reasoning for removal is improper because it focused on the appellant’s “suitability” to serve as a guardian under MCL 330.1628, as opposed to abiding by MCL 330.”
In Re Guardianship of Zachary Harley Davidson Imbirowicz (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “(2) Before the appointment, the court shall make a reasonable effort to question the individual concerning his or her preference regarding the person to be appointed guardian, and any preference indicated shall be given due consideration.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.