1.7Use of Videoconferencing Technology in Child Protective and Juvenile Guardianship Proceedings
MCR 3.904(B) provides:
“(1) Except as provided in subrule (B)(2), courts may allow the use of videoconferencing technology by any participant, as defined in MCR 2.407(A)(1),[1] in any proceeding.
(2) As long as the respondent is either present in the courtroom or has waived the right to be present, on motion of either party showing good cause, the court may use videoconferencing technology to take testimony from an expert witness or any person at another location in the following proceedings:
(a) removal hearings under MCR 3.967 and evidentiary hearings; and
(b) termination of parental rights proceedings under MCR 3.977 and trials, with the consent of the parties. A party who does not consent to the use of videoconferencing technology to take testimony from a person at trial shall not be required to articulate any reason for not consenting.”
“The use videoconferencing technology under this rule must be in accordance with the standards established by the State Court Administrative Office. All proceedings at which videoconferencing technology is used must be recorded verbatim by the court.” MCR 3.904(C).2
When a party has specifically consented to the use of videoconferencing technology to conduct a hearing, the court is not required to separately advise the party that he or she has “a right to be present in-person” during the hearing. In re Smith-Taylor, 339 Mich App 189, 208 (2021), rev’d on other grounds ___ Mich ___ (2022).
1 MCR 2.407(A)(1) defines participant as including, but not limited to, “parties, counsel, and subpoenaed witnesses, but do[es] not include the general public.”
2 Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2014-25, the State Court Administrative Office established the Michigan Trial Court Standards for Courtroom Technology, which sets forth standards for digital recording, video recording, and videoconferencing technology.