IN RE RANDY LIEFFERS JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of R.L., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 17, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239295
Newaygo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-004982-NA
SARAH ACKER,
Respondent-Appellant
and
RANDY LIEFFERS, SR.,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J. and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). 1 We affirm.
Respondent first argues that the trial court erred in accepting her plea to the initial
petition. Specifically, she claims that the court failed to properly advise her of the consequences
of her plea and also failed to ensure that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily given. As a
result of these alleged defects, respondent asserts that the court’s jurisdiction over the children
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Randy Lieffers, Sr. He
has not appealed the court’s order. The termination petition also listed MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g) as alternate grounds for termination; however, it appears that the trial court decided this
matter solely under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). Because only one statutory ground is required to
terminate parental rights, In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000), we need not
decide whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was also warranted under
§ § 19b(3)(c)(i) or (g).
-1-
was not properly established under MCL 712A.2(b)(1). Therefore, respondent argues that the
proceedings should be rendered void and the order terminating her parental rights vacated.
However, respondent did not timely appeal the trial court’s jurisdictional order or otherwise
contest its jurisdictional decision through a motion for rehearing below. See In re Hatcher, 443
Mich 426, 439; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In Re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d
799 (1995). Consequently, she may not now collaterally challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction
on appeal.
After reviewing the evidence presented, we find that the trial court did not clearly err in
finding that § § 19b(3)(j) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In
re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence did not show that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child's best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5). In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus the trial court
did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
