IN RE ALANNA CARRIN CHAMBERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Alanna Carrin Chambers, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 29, 2000
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 223128
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-344069
ALANNA CARRIN CHAMBERS,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sawyer and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals as of right from the family court’s orders adopting the referee’s
recommendations and terminating respondent’s wardship. We vacate the family court’s orders and
remand for further proceedings. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Respondent, a ward of the court, was charged as a juvenile with felonious assault, MCL
750.82; MSA 28.277. A pre-trial hearing was scheduled before Referee LeBost. Respondent’s
counsel asserted that the matter should be heard by Chief Referee Doetsch, who had acted in a truancy
matter involving respondent. Referee LeBost found that the case was properly before her, and
accepted respondent’s plea to a lesser charge. She recommended that respondent be placed in a
secure facility. Judge Lacey of the Family Division of Wayne Circuit Court reviewed the
recommendation, and remanded the matter to Referee LeBost for clarification. Referee LeBost
reviewed the file, and again recommended that respondent be placed in a secure facility. Respondent’s
counsel and mother consulted Chief Referee Doetsch, who changed Referee LeBost’s
recommendation, and recommended that respondent be released to her mother and that her wardship
be terminated. The family court adopted Chief Referee Doetsch’s recommendations.
In a juvenile matter which requires a hearing and the taking of testimony, a referee in the family
division of circuit court is required to summarize the testimony taken and to make a recommendation
-1
regarding disposition for the court. MCL 712A.10(1); MSA 27.3178(598.10)(1). A party who
objects to a referee’s recommendation may seek a review of that recommendation before a judge of the
family division of circuit court. MCR 5.991.
Petitioner argues that the family court’s orders adopting the recommendations of Chief Referee
Doetsch should be vacated. We agree, vacate the orders, and remand with instructions that the
recommendations of Referee LeBost be reinstated. No statute, court rule, or case required that the
matter be placed before Chief Referee Doetsch in all instances. Referee LeBost clarified her previous
findings and set forth recommendations as required by MCL 712A.10(1); MSA 27.3178(598.10)(1),
and the remand order. No authority supports Chief Referee Doetsch’s assertion that the chief referee
has the power to change any recommendation made by any other referee prior to the recommendation
being reviewed by a judge of the family court. The recommendations adopted by the family court were
not made pursuant to the procedure outlined in MCL 712A.10(1); MSA 27.3178(598.10)(1);
therefore, the family court erred by adopting those recommendations.
By vacating the family court’s orders and remanding with instructions that Referee LeBost’s
recommendations be reinstated, we do not leave respondent without a remedy. Respondent can seek
review of Referee LeBost’s recommendations pursuant to MCR 5.991.
Finally, we reject petitioner’s suggestion that we order the Family Division of Wayne Circuit
Court to adopt a court rule prohibiting a referee from changing the recommendation of another referee.
Petitioner acknowledges that it is uncertain that such a generalized practice exists. Moreover, this case
does not constitute the proper vehicle for such a procedure.
The family court’s orders adopting the recommendations of Chief Referee Doetsch are vacated,
and this case is remanded with instructions that the recommendations of Referee LeBost be reinstated.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
