PROBATE CODE OF 1939
Act 288 of 1939
712A.2b Violation of vehicle code or corresponding ordinance; procedure.
Sec. 2b.
When a juvenile is accused of an act that constitutes a violation of the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being sections 257.1 to 257.923 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or a provision of an ordinance substantially corresponding to any provision of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, the following procedure applies, any other provision of this chapter notwithstanding:
(a) No petition shall be required, but the court may act upon a copy of the written notice to appear given the accused juvenile as required by section 728 of the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.728 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(b) The juvenile's parent or parents, guardian, or custodian may be required to attend a hearing conducted under this section when notified by the court, without additional service of process or delay. However, the court may extend the time for that appearance.
(c) If after hearing the case the court finds the accusation to be true, the court may dispose of the case under section 18 of this chapter.
(d) Within 14 days after entry of a court order of disposition for a juvenile found to be within this chapter, the court shall prepare and forward an abstract of the record of the court for the case in accordance with section 732 of the Michigan vehicle code, Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.732 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(e) This section does not limit the court's discretion to restrict the driving privileges of a juvenile as a term or condition of probation.
History: Add. 1965, Act 42, Imd. Eff. May 25, 1965 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 124, Eff. July 1, 1988 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 409, Eff. Jan. 1, 1998
PopularName Notes:
Probate Code
PopularName Notes:
Juvenile Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
20 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case:
In Re Neubeck, 567 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
In Re Neubeck, 567 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “, the court must fulfill the reporting requirements imposed by MCL 712A.2b(d), 257.732; MSA 27.3178(598.”
In Re stewart-blake/stewart-butler/weston Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “To establish jurisdiction, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction exists under MCL 712A.2b. Ferranti, 504 Mich at 15-16.”
In Re Cchj Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 6× “The trial court took judicial notice of everything placed on the record up to the point of respondent’s no-contest plea, then found that the record established under MCL 712A.2b(1) that the children were “subject to a substantial risk of harm to their mental wellbeing.”
In Re J Moore Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “On the final day of the consolidated hearing, the trial court began rendering its findings by stating that the prosecution met its burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that the court should take jurisdiction over the minor child” under MCL 712A.2b. The trial…”
In Re E E Kirby Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “In closing arguments, petitioner contended that the trial court should take jurisdiction over EK under MCL 712A.2b(1) or (2) because EK lacked proper care and supervision.”
In Re Truax Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “This Court reasoned that, for the trial court to authorize the petition, DHHS was required to establish that one or more of the allegations in the petition were true and supported a statutory ground for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2b(1). Id. at ___; slip op at 3.”
in Re B M Davis Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Along with the petition for adjudication, the DHHS sought termination of respondent’s parental rights at the initial disposition.”
in Re B M Davis Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Along with the petition for adjudication, the DHHS sought termination of respondent’s parental rights at the initial disposition.”
in Re crooks/jones Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“at termination is required at the initial disposition hearing and additional reunification efforts shall not be ordered if (1) the original, or amended, petition contains a request for termination; (2) at the trial or plea proceedings, the trier of facts finds by a preponderance…”
in Re crooks/jones Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“at termination is required at the initial disposition hearing and additional reunification efforts shall not be ordered if (1) the original, or amended, petition contains a request for termination; (2) at the trial or plea proceedings, the trier of facts finds by a preponderance…”
in Re B a Bradley Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“After an adjudication trial and best-interest hearing, the trial court found that BAB came within the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 712A.2b(1) and (2), there was clear and convincing 1 On February 1, 2018, the trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights to the…”
In Re Skursky Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“MCL 712A.2b concerns cases in which a juvenile is accused of violating the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2b(1) — 11 cases
In Re stewart-blake/stewart-butler/weston Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“To establish jurisdiction, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction exists under MCL 712A.2b. Ferranti, 504 Mich at 15-16.”
In Re Cchj Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“The trial court took judicial notice of everything placed on the record up to the point of respondent’s no-contest plea, then found that the record established under MCL 712A.2b(1) that the children were “subject to a substantial risk of harm to their mental wellbeing.”
In Re E E Kirby Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“In closing arguments, petitioner contended that the trial court should take jurisdiction over EK under MCL 712A.2b(1) or (2) because EK lacked proper care and supervision.”
In Re Truax Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“This Court reasoned that, for the trial court to authorize the petition, DHHS was required to establish that one or more of the allegations in the petition were true and supported a statutory ground for jurisdiction under MCL 712A.2b(1). Id. at ___; slip op at 3.”
in Re B M Davis Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Along with the petition for adjudication, the DHHS sought termination of respondent’s parental rights at the initial disposition.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2b(2) — 5 cases
In Re Cchj Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“The trial court took judicial notice of everything placed on the record up to the point of respondent’s no-contest plea, then found that the record established under MCL 712A.2b(1) that the children were “subject to a substantial risk of harm to their mental wellbeing.”
In Re stewart-blake/stewart-butler/weston Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“To establish jurisdiction, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a statutory basis for exercising jurisdiction exists under MCL 712A.2b. Ferranti, 504 Mich at 15-16.”
In Re J Moore Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“On the final day of the consolidated hearing, the trial court began rendering its findings by stating that the prosecution met its burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence that the court should take jurisdiction over the minor child” under MCL 712A.2b. The trial…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2b(a)(i) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2b(d) — 1 case
In Re Neubeck, 567 N.W.2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
“, the court must fulfill the reporting requirements imposed by MCL 712A.2b(d), 257.732; MSA 27.3178(598.”
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.