Rule 3.904.Use of Videoconferencing Technology.

MCR 3.904 sorts juvenile hearings into those a court may hold by videoconference on its own decision, those that need a motion and good cause, and those that need consent. The line the rule draws is between conducting a hearing by videoconference and taking testimony by videoconference, and it treats the second as the harder case.

Delinquency, designated, and personal protection violation proceedings

Subrule (A)(1) gives the court open authority for a defined list: preliminary hearings under MCR 3.935(A)(1), preliminary examinations under MCR 3.953 and MCR 3.985, dispositional hearings, and postdispositional progress reviews. No motion and no consent are required for those.

Subrule (A)(2) covers everything else in these tracks and narrows the authority in three ways at once. The juvenile must be present in the courtroom or have waived the right to be present, a party must move, and the moving party must show good cause. Even then the technology is limited to taking testimony from an expert witness or a person at another location.

Subrule (A)(3) treats trial differently. At trial the court may use videoconferencing technology only with the consent of the parties, and a party who does not consent to taking testimony this way is not required to articulate any reason for refusing. That last clause matters in practice: a refusal cannot be tested, weighed, or overridden for being unexplained.

Child protective and juvenile guardianship proceedings

Subrule (B)(1) runs the other direction. Except as subrule (B)(2) provides, courts may allow the use of videoconferencing technology by any participant, as that term is defined in MCR 2.407(A)(1), in any proceeding.

Subrule (B)(2) pulls back the higher-stakes hearings. The respondent must be present in the courtroom or have waived the right to be present, and the court may take testimony remotely from an expert witness or any person at another location only on motion of either party showing good cause, in:

• removal hearings under MCR 3.967 and evidentiary hearings; and
• termination of parental rights proceedings under MCR 3.977 and trials, which additionally require the consent of the parties.

The no-reason clause repeats here in the same terms as in subrule (A)(3). A party who does not consent to the use of videoconferencing technology to take testimony from a person at trial is not required to articulate any reason for not consenting.

Mechanics

Subrule (C) adds two requirements that apply everywhere in the rule. Use of the technology must follow the standards established by the State Court Administrative Office, and every proceeding at which videoconferencing technology is used must be recorded verbatim by the court.