IN RE MICK MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
?STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.M., J.G.M., and K.B.M., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 15, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238039
Shiawassee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-009689-NA
KEN MICK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SALLY MICK,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this child protection proceeding, petitioner filed a petition requesting the court to
exercise jurisdiction over the minor children. At the initial dispositional hearing, the trial court
entered an order granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition. Respondent-appellant seeks
to appeal by right. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
MCR 7.203(A)(1) provides that this Court has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by
an aggrieved party from a final judgment or final order. This court rule requires both an
aggrieved party and a final order.
An aggrieved party is one whose legal right is invaded by an action, or whose pecuniary
interest is directly or adversely affected by a judgment or order. An aggrieved party has an
interest in the subject matter of the litigation. In Re Estate of Critchell, 361 Mich 432, 105
NW2d 417 (1960); Irish v State Treasurer, 158 Mich App 337, 404 NW2d 733 (1987). The
definition of “aggrieved party” varies according to the type of case at issue, and, consequently,
the court must in each case examine the subject matter of the litigation. Security Ins Co v
Daniels, 70 Mich App 100, 245 NW2d 418 (1976).
-1-
The subject matter of this appeal involves the dismissal of the petition to terminate
respondent-appellant’s parental rights. As the legal father of the three minors, he clearly has an
interest in resolution of the issue regarding the termination of his parental rights. However, his
parental rights were not terminated or otherwise invaded because the matter was decided in his
favor due to the dismissal. As his rights were not adversely affected and because he stands in the
identical position as he did prior to the petition being filed, he is not an “aggrieved party”
pursuant to MCR 7.203(A)(1).
Appeal dismissed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Henry W. Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
