IN RE LETTS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A. M. L. and J. M. L., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225380
Midland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-000135-NA
HEATHER LETTS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLEO LETTS,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant Heather Letts (hereafter “respondent”) appeals as of right from the
family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
I
Respondent argues that the family court’s failure to appoint counsel until after the
preliminary hearing deprived her of her right to counsel. We disagree. In child protective
proceedings, indigent respondents are afforded the right to court-appointed counsel by statute,
MCL 712A.17c(5); MSA 27.3178(598.17c)(5), and court rule, MCR 5.915(B)(1). The record
reflects no violation of the right to counsel.
The family court referee advised respondent at the preliminary hearing of her right to an
attorney at all subsequent hearings and her right to a court-appointed attorney if she was
financially unable to retain counsel. At the end of the hearing, the referee again referred to
respondent’s right to retain counsel or request appointed counsel. Respondent indicated that she
-1-
would be asking for appointed counsel, and the referee directed her to complete the appropriate
forms after the hearing. Respondent filed a request for appointed counsel after the hearing, and
the family court promptly appointed counsel to represent her two days after the hearing.
Under MCR 5.915(B)(1), respondent did not have a right to appointed counsel until she
requested counsel and a determination was made by the family court regarding her financial
inability to retain counsel. In re Hall, 188 Mich App 217; 469 NW2d 56 (1991). Counsel could
then be appointed to represent respondent “at any later hearing” pursuant to MCR
5.915(B)(1)(a)(ii). It is apparent that respondent’s right to counsel was not violated. The family
court referee carefully sought to ensure that respondent understood the nature of the proceedings
and properly advised respondent of her right to an attorney and what she needed to do to request
an attorney. Accordingly, there was no error.
II
Respondent-appellant also argues that the failure to comply with certain time guidelines
for filing a termination petition requires that the order terminating her parental rights be set aside,
citing MCL 712A.19a(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19a)(5) and MCR 5.974(F)(1)(a). We disagree.
The statutory 42-day period was not met (the petition was filed two days late). However,
this Court held in In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28-29; 501 NW2d 182 (1993), that failure to
follow the time requirements of MCR 5.974(F) does not require reversal of a termination order,
that neither the court rule nor the statute provides sanctions for their violation, and that the Court
would not impose sanctions that the Legislature and the Supreme Court have declined to impose.
See also In re Kirkwood, 187 Mich App 542, 545-546; 468 NW2d 280 (1991) (holding that the
failure to meet the 42-day requirement did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to continue to
hear the matter). Respondent does not allege any prejudice owing to the brief delay in filing and
we find that her argument on this issue is without merit.
III
Finally, the family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for
termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the family
court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/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.
