The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5574 September 18, 1979 SCHOOLS & SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Residency of pupils REVISED PROBATE CODE: Power of attorney for custody of child A child placed in a relative's home pursuant to a power of attorney authorized by the Revised Probate Code for the purpose of securing a suitable home and not for an educational purpose is a resident for educational purposes of the school district in which the relative resides. A child placed with a person other than a relative pursuant to a power of attorney under the Revised Probate Code does not become a resident of the school district in which such person resides. Honorable Alfred A. Sheridan State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 You have requested my opinion on a question which may be stated as follows: For public school enrollment purposes, can a child's residency be established under Section 405 of the Revised Probate Code, 1978 PA 642; MCLA 700.405; MSA 27.5405? That statutory provision states: 'A parent or a guardian of a minor or legally incapacitated person, by a properly executed power of attorney, may delegate to another person for a period not exceeding 6 months, any of the parent's or guardian's powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor child or ward, except the power to consent to marriage or adoption of a minor ward.' The legislature has provided for the determination of the residence of students, for public school enrollment purposes, in the provisions of the School Code of 1976, 1976 PA 451, MCLA 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq. Under the School Code of 1976, supra, Sec. 1147, all children who are at least 5 years of age are entitled to enroll in the schools of the school district in which they are residents. Where a child is living in a home, other than that of his parents or legal guardian, the School Code of 1976, supra, Sec. 1148, in pertinent part, provides: '. . . [A] child placed under the order or direction of a court or child placing agency in a licensed home, or a child whose parents or legal guardians are unable to provide a home for the child and who is placed in a licensed home or in a home of relatives in the school district for the purpose of securing a suitable home for the child and not for an educational purpose, shall be considered a resident for education purposes of the school district where the home in which the child is living is located. The child shall be admitted to the school in the district.' In OAG, 1975-1976, No 5004, p 457 (May 13, 1976), (a1) which concerned the definition of residence for the purpose of public school enrollment, the Attorney General concluded that for public school enrollment purposes, a child who resides in the home of a relative for the purpose of securing a suitable home is a resident of the school district in which the relative resides. If, on the other hand, the child resides in the home of a relative to receive educational benefits of the school district, the child is not, for school enrollment purposes, a resident of the school district in which the relative resides. In his opinion, the Attorney General relied on the case of School District No. 1, Fractional, of the Township of Mancelona v School District No. 1 of Township of Custer, 236 Mich 677; 211 NW 60 (1926), for the definition of residence: 'For a definition of 'resident' the court restated the following test: "The rule as to what constitutes residence entitling children to the privileges of public schools is well stated in the note to Commonwealth v School Directors of Upper Swatara Township, 26 L.R.A. 581: "'So far as a rule can be deducted from the cases upon this subject, it seems to be that a child is entitled to the benefit of the public schools in the district in which it lives if it has gone there in good faith for the purpose of acquiring a home and not for the purpose of taking advantage of school privileges. But that it will not be permitted to go into a district chiefly for the purpose of getting school advantages." School District case, supra, at 682; 211 NW at 62.' OAG, 1975-1976, No 5004, supra, pp 457-458 OAG, 1975-1976, No 5004, supra, also relied upon Shapiro v Ann Arbor School District, 14 Mich App 738; 165 NW2d 919 (1968), which held that a child who did not live with her father, even though he was able to provide her with a suitable home, but instead lived in the defendant school district for educational purposes only, was not a resident of the Ann Arbor School District. Thus, the child was not entitled to tuition-free enrollment in that school district. In University Center, Inc v Ann Arbor Public Schools, 386 Mich 210; 191 NW2d 302 (1971), plaintiff filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel registration, in the public schools of the defendant, of youthful patients at a private psychiatric hospital located within the defendant school district. None of the patients were children of families which resided in the school district, and all patients but one were from out of state. It had been the custom for a doctor, who was the director of the hospital, to file a petition for appointment of a guardian in the Probate Court of Washtenaw County. The parents would consent to the appointment of the guardian, and an order would be entered by the Probate Court appointing the doctor as guardian of the child. This had been the custom for 15 years, and the children had been enrolled in the public schools of the defendant school district without payment of tuition. In 1969, the public school district informed the hospital director that school policy had changed and the patients would no longer be admitted as resident students. Relying upon the predecessor provisions [1955 PA 269, Secs. 356-358] of the School Code of 1976, supra, Secs. 1147 and 1148, the Court held that under the guardianship order the children in question were residents of the defendant school district. Therefore, the Court granted the writ of mandamus, compelling registration of the children as resident students. Your inquiry is whether a power of attorney executed pursuant to the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, is sufficient to establish a child's residency for public school enrollment purposes where the person exercising the parent's powers, pursuant to the power of attorney, resides in a school district other than the school district where the parents reside. The power of attorney, unlike the guardianship in University Center, Inc v Ann Arbor Public Schools, supra, is not a court order that establishes a child's residence by operation of law. The provisions of statutes should be interpreted so as to harmonize them and give effect to all of the legislative language. Hall v Calhoun County Board of Supervisors, 373 Mich 642, 646-647, n 4; 130 NW2d 414, 416, n 4 (1964). Further, the law is settled that repeals by implication are not favored and that, whenever possible, earlier and later statutes will be construed together to give meaning to both. Lansing School District v School District No. 3, 327 Mich 436, 440; 42 NW2d 132, 134 (1950). Moreover, assuming arguendo a conflict between these two statutes, the School Code of 1976, Sec. 1148, supra, is a specific provision which must control over the general provision of the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra. Imlay Township Primary School District No 5 v State Board of Education, 359 Mich 478; 102 NW2d 720 (1960). The language of the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, may be given effect without ruling that a power of attorney thereunder conclusively establishes residency for school enrollment purposes. Construing the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, and the School Code of 1976, Sec. 1148 together, Sec. 1148, supra, provides that a child placed in a relative's home for the purpose of securing a suitable home, and not for an educational purpose, is a resident for educational purposes of the school district in which the relative resides. Thus, it is my opinion that a child placed with a relative pursuant to a power of attorney under the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, for the purpose of securing a suitable home for the child becomes a resident of the school district in which the relative resides for public school enrollment purposes. However, a child placed with a relative pursuant to a power of attorney under the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, for educational purposes does not become a resident of the school district in which the relative resides for public school enrollment purposes. Finally, based upon the language of the School Code of 1976, Sec. 1148, supra, limiting placement for school enrollment purposes to licensed homes or the homes of relatives, a child placed with a person other than a relative pursuant to a power of attorney under the Revised Probate Code, Sec. 405, supra, does not become a resident of the school district in which such person resides. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (a1)