IN RE CODY ALLEN & STEPHENI MICHELLE HAGER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CODY ALLEN HAGER and
STEPHENI MICHELLE HAGER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
VIRGINIA CASE KINNEY,
No. 225922
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-011599
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID HAGER,
Respondent.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Sawyer and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court’s order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j) and (l); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), (j)
and (l). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court’s failure to issue its decision within seventy days of the termination hearing, as
prescribed by MCR 5.974(G)(1) and MCL 712A.19b(1); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(1), does not
require reversal. Such a remedy is inconsistent with the express language of MCL 712A.19b(1); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(1), which provides that “the court’s failure to issue an opinion within 70 days does
not dismiss the petition.” Further, absent any sanction prescribed in the court rule, the failure to follow
the rule’s time requirement does not warrant reversal of the termination order. Cf. In re Jackson, 199
Mich App 22, 28-29; 501 NW2d 182 (1993); In re Kirkwood, 187 Mich App 542, 545-546; 468
NW2d 280 (1991). See also In re Longworth v Hwy Dep’t, 110 Mich App 771, 778; 315 NW2d
135 (1981) (failure to comply with a court rule does not require reversal where no party is prejudiced
and where the error is not so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial process that it can never
be regarded as harmless). Although respondent-appellant argues that she should minimally be entitled
to a rehearing, she never moved for rehearing in the trial court as permitted by MCR 5.992.
Accordingly, we find no merit to this issue.
The record discloses that the trial court properly made findings of fact regarding the children’s
best interests, MCR 5.974(G), and our review of the record discloses no clear error in this
determination. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
354; 603 NW2d 787 (2000).
Affirmed.
/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.
