IN RE ASHLEIGH FLINT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHLEIGH FLINT, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 31, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 215938
Ionia Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-000163 NA
ANDREW KNIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
AMANDA FLINT,
Respondent.
Before: Markman P.J., and Saad and P. D. Houk*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). We affirm.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not err in failing to appoint counsel for respondent-appellant after the
February 4, 1998, review hearing, because respondent-appellant was not properly a “respondent” as
defined by MCR 5.903(C)(8), until the termination petition was subsequently filed on September 17,
1998. By that time, respondent-appellant was represented by counsel, the trial court having sua sponte
appointed counsel for respondent-appellant at the permanency planning hearing on August 5, 1998,
when the court directed petitioner to file the termination petition. Contrary to respondent-appellant’s
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
argument, there is no indication that the trial court was contemplating termination of his parental rights at
the February 4, 1998, dispositional review hearing. However, even if termination were a “possibility” at
the time of the February 4, 1998, review hearing, that fact alone did not require that the trial court sua
sponte appoint counsel for respondent-appellant. MCR 5.915(B)(1); In re Hall, 188 Mich App 217;
469 NW2d 56 (1991).
Thus, because respondent-father did not have a right to court-appointed counsel until he
became a “respondent,” and because he did not properly become a respondent until the termination
petition was filed against him on September 17, 1998, he was not deprived of procedural due process
on the basis that the trial court did not appoint counsel for him after the February 4, 1998, hearing.
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. Houk
-2
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.
