Residents urge oversight of guardianship and court practices; commenter alleges sheriff cooperation with ICE

Several Kent County residents used the general public-comment period to press the Board of Commissioners for oversight of probate and guardianship practices and to raise law-enforcement concerns.

Siri Levickas told commissioners she was denied access to her critically ill son in November 2025 and said the decision relied on hearsay rather than documented evidence. "There was no finding that I am a danger. No evidence. No due process," Levickas said, and she asked the board to investigate and provide county-level oversight because, she said, county officials are charged with protecting public welfare under Michigan law (including MCL 46.11).

Brandy Ritzma said a guardian ad litem, Stacy Van Dyken, had been paid $5,000 in public funds in her case and "never contacted me... never conducted a balanced investigation," calling the report "a 100% falsified and inaccurate" basis for court action. Ritzma asked the commissioners to examine why public funds were spent without oversight and to seek accountability.

Charlie Snedeker, a lifelong Kent County resident, cited a local television report and recited a quote attributed to the sheriff: "Kent County sheriff Michelle LaJoie Young says her office consistently works with ICE." Snedeker urged commissioners to make their disapproval known if they cannot exercise direct oversight of the sheriff’s department.

Advocates also urged the board to support state legislation on supported decision-making designed to limit full guardianships and require courts to consider less restrictive alternatives; Rosalyn Harris asked commissioners to contact state leaders and research House Bills 4676 and 4677.

Representative Johnson addressed the board to thank them for their partnership and offered continued state-level support; several commissioners said they would look into guardianship concerns and seek more information. Commissioner Womack said she would study the issue and invited residents to contact her with details.

No formal board action on these public-comment requests was recorded at the meeting; several commissioners acknowledged the concerns and noted they would follow up.