New Details: Michigan Mother Says School Failed to Notify Her Daughter Was Questioned by Attorney, Says Police Should Have Been Called

New details are raising concerns about how a school handled questioning a student behind closed doors.

This is a follow-up to an exclusive story I first reported in January. I have been working on this story for the past two months.

A Mid-Michigan mother says her daughter was pulled out of class at Bangor High School in Bay County, Michigan, and questioned alone by an attorney without her knowledge.

According to Melissa Gary, the interview happened on October 28, 2025, and was conducted by attorney Mary Jo D. Banasik of the Thrun Law Firm. Gary says she was never notified or asked for permission before her daughter was questioned, and that the attorney was the only person in the room.

Gary has since spoken at multiple school board meetings, demanding answers about why her daughter was questioned and how it was handled.

Get stories like this by signing up to my free newsletter if you don’t already. Click the button below.

Documents later reviewed by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission found no violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by the attorney.

Despite that finding, Gary continues to raise concerns about how the situation was handled.

I’ve obtained documents that provide additional context about what was happening behind the scenes, along with details the family says they were never told. I also spoke exclusively with Gary about what she believes was kept from her.

The documents and timeline below outline what happened and who was involved. I also have an exclusive interview with Gary.

At a school board meeting on January 5, 2026, School Board President Justin Forgash read the following statement:

“The board has reviewed the independent attorney Client Privilege Fact Finding investigation report regarding allegations that a staff member violated board policy. The investigating attorney interviewed multiple witnesses with the relevant information, including the investigation followed due process procedures, and the superintendent authorized the fact finding investigation as permitted by board policy. There were no allegations of criminal activity or any concerns of a sexual nature. Information that has been made public is inaccurate and does not align with the facts that the investigation. The board accepts the fact finding report regarding the district employee, supports its conclusions and considers the matter.”

Despite Forgash’s statement during that meeting, Gary says some of the information she later received differs from what was publicly stated. Gary also says attorney Banasik was present at the January 5 meeting when the statement was read.

Gary filed a complaint against attorney Banasik with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, the agency responsible for investigating complaints against lawyers in Michigan.

In response, attorney Banasik wrote to the commission, stating, “Neither I nor Bangor Township Schools violated any Michigan law. Ms. Gary’s allegations are misplaced and without merit, and her request for information should be denied.”

In that same letter, Banasik said Bangor Schools Superintendent Matt Schmidt retained Thrun Law to conduct an investigation concerning allegations of potential grooming behavior by a district employee.

Banasik’s letter to the commission states she was asked to investigate allegations of potential grooming involving a district employee.

In Michigan, “grooming” is not defined as a standalone crime. It is generally understood as a pattern of behavior in which an adult builds trust with a minor in a way that could lead to exploitation. While the term itself is not specifically codified in state law, certain behaviors associated with grooming may be considered as part of broader criminal offenses under Michigan law if illegal conduct is involved.

In this case, officials have said there were no allegations of criminal activity.

Gary believes the situation should have been handled differently, including whether authorities should have been involved.

Bangor Township Schools’ policy on student questioning outlines procedures intended to protect students while coordinating with outside agencies when appropriate. The policy states that if law enforcement or child services seek to question a student, they must go through the building administrator, who is responsible for attempting to notify parents and remaining present unless prohibited.

In cases involving suspected abuse or neglect, school employees are required to report concerns to the appropriate agency. For other potential violations of law, the policy states interviews should take place off school grounds and outside school hours when possible, with efforts made to notify parents and have administrators present.

The policy also emphasizes documentation, communication with parents, and safeguards to ensure student welfare during any questioning process.

A police report filed by Gary includes a statement from attorney Banasik to the investigating sheriff’s deputy. According to the report, Banasik said there was no need for a CPS report related to the interview, describing the matter as a school policy issue with no criminal allegations. She also stated that the student was not told she could not leave.

April 27 School Board Meeting

Despite School Board President Justin Forgash saying in December that the matter was closed, he read a statement about it during the April 27 meeting.

The following is a video of Board President Justin Forgash reading the statement:

Following the statement being read, the school board voted 6 to 1 not to put Superintendent Schmidt on paid administrative leave while the issue was investigated further.

Melissa’s daughter spoke at the meeting about the situation and told the board about her interview with the attorney, saying, “She advised me not to tell my parents or anyone, for that matter.”

The unnamed staff member at the center of the investigation was cleared of any wrongdoing. Melissa and her daughter have also said the staff member “did nothing wrong.”

Melissa maintains the situation should have been handled differently and believes it should have been turned over to law enforcement. She also believes a mandatory reporter should have contacted authorities.

Attorney Banasik did not respond to a request for comment. In documents submitted to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, she stated that Gary’s allegations against her are false. The commission ultimately found no violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct.

According to documents provided to Gary, the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission found no violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by attorney Mary Jo D. Banasik, clearing her of wrongdoing.

I reached out to attorney Banasik and Superintendent Schmidt for comment, but did not receive a response. If they respond, this story will be updated.