Kubick v. Child and Family Services of Michigan Inc
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
 |
This Open Records and Transparency Project article is a sprout. You can help us collect information about this case, and other important FOIA cases across the country, by expanding this article. |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Kubick v. Child and Family Services of Michigan Inc was a case before the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1988 concerning the applicability of open records laws to private corporations.
Important precedents
This case established a 50% threshold for a private entity to be considered publicly funded.[1]
Background
- Child and Family Services of Michigan Inc. is a private nonprofit corporation
- In 1983 the Marquette County Probate Court assumed control of Carol Kubick's children. On December 14, 1983, the Department of Social Services referred the case to Child and Family Services of Michigan Inc.. They were to provide foster care until Kubick was fully rehabilitated.
- On July 2, 1984 Kubick requested any files they had on her and her two daughters.
- When the requests were denied, Kubick filed suit in court under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act for access to the records.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Child and Family Services.[1]
- Kubick appealed the decision.
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of the corporation, and ordered the release of only the financial data on the family. The court determined that the corporation was not a public body and was therefor not subject to the public records act.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, determining that the corporation was not in fact a public body. In its decision, the court turned to the question of what constitutes being "primarily funded." The court declined to draw a bright-line rule and establish a percentage of funds that would constitute primary funding. Instead, the court felt that each case should be weigh upon its own merits. However, the court went on to establish that if less than 50% of the funding came from the government, as is the case for Child and Family Services, the entity in question could not be considered publicly funded. Based on this ruling the court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ruled in favor of CHild and Family Services.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
