IN RE WILLIAM RAY WIDING MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re MATTHEW THOMAS WIDING, Minor.
JEANNINE M. MACDONALD,
UNPUBLISHED
February 6, 2001
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 227386
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-018607-AD
MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE/FIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
In re WILLIAM RAY WIDING, Minor.
JEANNINE M. MACDONALD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 227487
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-018608-AD
MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE/FIA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hood and Cavanagh, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner appeals as of right from an order dismissing her petitions to adopt the minors
named above. We affirm, but remand for consideration of issues pending before the trial court.
Although a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an adoption petition is generally
reviewed for an abuse of discretion, we review de novo questions of law. In re TMK, 242 Mich
App 302, 304; 617 NW2d 925 (2000).
-1-
MCL 710.45(1); MSA 27.3178(555.45)(1) provides that a trial court “shall not allow the
filing of a petition to adopt a child if the consent of a representative or court is required pursuant
to section 43(1)(b), (c), or (d) of this chapter unless the petition is accompanied by the required
consent or a motion as provided in subsection (2).” In the instant matter, petitioner was required
to attach either respondent’s consent to her adoption of the minors or a motion challenging
respondent’s decision to deny consent. Petitioner’s petitions failed to include either alternate
attachment. Thus, the trial court should not have accepted petitioner’s filings. Further, MCR
2.116(I)(1) provides that “[i]f the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law . . . the court shall render judgment without delay.” Consequently, we conclude that the
trial court did not err by dismissing petitioner’s petitions.
Petitioner also challenges the trial court orders requiring the immediate removal of the
minors from petitioner’s home. These orders were entered in lower court docket numbers 981032-01-NA and 98-1032-NA; however, petitioner’s appeal only concerns docket numbers 00018607-AD and 00-018608-AD. Thus, petitioner has failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of
this Court with regard to the orders of removal. Therefore, we may not consider these issues.
We also note that, because of this appeal, the trial court did not rule on petitioner’s
motions challenging respondent’s withholding of consent as arbitrary and capricious, as allowed
by MCL 710.45(2); MSA 27.3178(555.45)(2). In addition, petitioner filed motions challenging
the trial court’s decision to remove the minors from petitioner’s home. These motions were filed
a day after petitioner filed her claim of appeal, and have yet to be ruled on. Accordingly, we
remand for consideration of the merits of these motions.
Affirmed, but remanded for consideration of unresolved motions before the trial court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
