IN RE ROBERT DALE ABBOTT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of R.D.A., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239269
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-351712-NA
JOYCE ABBOTT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RANDY EDWARD JAMES,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J. and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Abbott appeals by delayed leave granted from a circuit court order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying her request for a
jury trial at the jurisdictional hearing. The court’s exercise of jurisdiction cannot be challenged
in a collateral attack on appeal from the termination decision. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426; 505
NW2d 834 (1993). The court’s exercise of jurisdiction can only be challenged by direct appeal
of the order taking jurisdiction. In re Bechard, 211 Mich App 155, 159; 535 NW2d 220 (1995);
In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). The court did not enter an
order expressly finding that it had jurisdiction following the adjudicative hearing, but its findings
were at least implicitly, if not expressly, encompassed by the June 29, 1999 order of disposition.
The right to appeal the adjudicatory stage of the proceedings arose upon entry of that order.
Bechard, supra at 159-160. Because respondent did not directly appeal that order, she cannot
challenge the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
