IN RE BAKER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.B. and S. B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 19, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235811
Marquette Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-006823-NA
JULIE BAKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM HOLM,
Respondent.
In the Matter of S. B. and S. B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236038
Marquette Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-006823-NA
WILLIAM HOLM,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JULIE BAKER,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Gage, P.J., and Griffin and G. S. Buth*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children. The court terminated the parental rights
of respondent mother, Julie Baker, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) and terminated
the parental rights of respondent father, William Holm, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and
(h). We affirm. These appeals are being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
The trial court's failure to issue its decision within seventy days of the termination
hearing, as prescribed by MCR 5.974(G)(1), does not require reversal. Such a remedy is
inconsistent with the express language of MCL 712A.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. 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).
We review for clear error the trial court’s decision whether a statutory ground for
termination was proven be clear and convincing evidence and its decision regarding a child’s
best interests. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We
conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for
termination of respondents’ parental rights were established by clear and convincing evidence
and that termination was not contrary to the children’s best interests.
Finally, we find that, because respondent father failed to timely raise his claim that
petitioner did not provide him adequate services for reunification with the children, this issue
was forfeited. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 27; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). Moreover, the record
does not support his claim that he tried to place the children in a proper custodial environment
prior to his incarceration.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ George S. Buth
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
