REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL COSTS OF FOSTER PARENTS
Act 33 of 1980
722.163 Action against foster parent or legal guardian for injuries; “legal guardian” defined.
Sec. 3.
(1) A foster child may maintain an action against his or her foster parent who is licensed under Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, being sections 722.111 to 722.128 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and a child may maintain an action against his or her legal guardian for injuries suffered as a result of the alleged ordinary negligence of the foster parent or legal guardian except in either of the following instances:
(a) If the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child.
(b) If the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care.
(2) As used in this section, "legal guardian" means a person appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to exercise care and custody decisions over a minor.
History: Add. 1988, Act 233, Eff. Aug. 1, 1988
Compiler's Notes:
Section 3 of Act 233 of 1988 provides: “This amendatory act shall apply to causes of action occurring on or after August 1, 1988.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case:
Spikes v. Banks, 586 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
Spikes v. Banks, 586 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “She relies on MCL 722.163(1); MSA 25.358(63)(1), the foster parent immunity statute, which provides in pertinent part: A foster child may maintain an action against his or her foster parent who is licensed under Act No.”
Brown v. Hatch, 984 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.163 (l)(b). . The Court notes that it is questionable whether there was such a failure in this case given the evidence contained in the exhibits *713 attached by Plaintiff.”
Johnson v. Michigan Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2× “The Michigan legislature has extended these parental-immunity principles to foster parents, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.163 (West 2019), and Michigan courts recognize that “the first exception to the abrogation of parental immunity, the ‘parental authority’ exception, does apply…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.163(1) — 1 case
Spikes v. Banks, 586 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“She relies on MCL 722.163(1); MSA 25.358(63)(1), the foster parent immunity statute, which provides in pertinent part: A foster child may maintain an action against his or her foster parent who is licensed under Act No.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.163(l)(a) — 1 case
Spikes v. Banks, 586 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“She relies on MCL 722.163(1); MSA 25.358(63)(1), the foster parent immunity statute, which provides in pertinent part: A foster child may maintain an action against his or her foster parent who is licensed under Act No.”
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.