IN RE HORTON/BOLIN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DANIELLE M. HORTON, SHAWN
P. HORTON, DEANNA L. HORTON, CHEYENNE
L. HORTON, and STEPHANIE L. BOLIN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY
UNPUBLISHED
March 3, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 202592
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-326839
CHRISTINE M. HORTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GARY LEE BOLIN, TIMOTHY E. HUBEL,
and JOHN DOE,
Respondents.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Fitzgerald and M.G. Harrison*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Christine M. Horton (hereinafter “respondent”) appeals as of right from a
juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(c)(i), (g), and (j), in accordance with the recommendation of a
probate court referee. We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent failed to show that termination of her parental
-2
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interest. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564
NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
We disagree with respondent’s claim that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate her parenting abilities, thereby likening this case to In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61; 472
NW2d 38 (1991). Unlike the situation in In re Newman, the facts of this case did not reveal that
respondent had “demonstrated over the course of time an ability and willingness to learn[,]” that she
was “very cooperative,” or that she had already remedied several of the conditions mentioned in the
original petition. Id. at 66.
Although the juvenile court erred when it stated that respondent did not participate in a drug
assessment, the error was harmless because it is clear from the court’s statements that alleged drug
usage was not a factor in its decision to terminate parental rights.
Respondent does not cite any authority in support of her claim that she had a due process right
to have the termination hearing conducted by the same referee who presided at the earlier review
hearings. Also, respondent never objected to visiting Referee Schaerges presiding at the termination
hearing. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this Court. Speaker-Hines & Thomas, Inc v
Dep’t of Treasury, 207 Mich App 84, 90; 523 NW2d 826 (1994). Cf. People v Sanford, 252 Mich
240, 246-247; 233 NW 192 (1930); Clutton v Clutton, 106 Mich 690, 691; 64 NW 744 (1895).
Respondent’s last claim of error is premised on the assumption that the referee’s written report
and recommendation was “prepared and signed” by Chief Referee Thomas Doetsch, instead of Referee
Schaerges. Contrary to what respondent argues, however, the record indicates that the written report
was prepared by Referee Schaerges. Although Chief Referee Thomas Doetsch signed the report, he
did so “for Referee Allen Schaerges.” Accordingly, we find no error.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael G. Harrison
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.