IN RE UTTER, MAXSON & MARTIN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JONATHON LEE UTTER, JASON
TYLER MAXSON and TODD JACOB MARTIN,
JR., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 23, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
JESSICA UTTER,
No. 222081
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-000164-NA
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN MAXSON, TODD MARTIN, SR., and
GARY DENTLER,
Respondents.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-mother voluntarily released her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to
MCL 710.29; MSA 27.3178(555.29). She subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to
vacate her prior release. The trial court denied the motion, and respondent-mother now appeals as of
right. We affirm.
First, respondent-mother argues that reversal is required because the trial court failed to secure
her presence at the earlier statutory review hearings, which preceded the termination proceeding at
which she voluntarily released her parental rights. However, respondent-mother did not raise this issue
in the trial court. Normally, an appellate court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal,
including constitutional issues. Booth v U of M Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d 422
(1993). Accordingly, this issue is not preserved.
In any event, there is no absolute right to be present at a statutory review hearing. Cf. In re
Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 49-50; 501 NW2d 231 (1993). Here, respondent-appellant was
represented by counsel at the earlier hearings. Moreover, as in In re Vasquez, respondent-mother has
not shown how her presence at the earlier hearings would have changed anything. Id. at 48. Indeed,
her parental rights were ultimately terminated pursuant to her own voluntary release of parental rights,
not because of any contested evidence presented at the earlier review hearings. Under these
circumstances, respondent-mother is not entitled to appellate relief.
Second, we also reject respondent-mother’s assertion that the trial court abused its discretion
by denying her request to vacate her release of parental rights. In re Burns, 236 Mich App 291, 292;
599 NW2d 783 (1999). Apart from respondent-mother’s history of refusing to avail herself of
available services, the record amply supports the trial court’s determination that it would not be in the
children’s best interests to set aside the release and that the children would be harmed if their
placements were changed. In re Blankenship, 165 Mich App 706, 713; 418 NW2d 919 (1988).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
