IN RE IAN PRATT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of IAN PRATT, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237575
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-394502
SHEREE PRATT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order of disposition making the minor
child a temporary ward of the court. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Petitioner sought temporary wardship for the minor child. Following a preliminary
hearing, the court authorized the petition and placed the child outside the home. MCR
5.965(B)(9), (C). At a pretrial hearing, the parties agreed to stipulate to jurisdiction so the child
could reside with relatives outside the state. The court then entered an order of jurisdiction.
Respondent contends that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction without advising
her of her rights to a trial and eliciting admissions from her to establish a factual basis for
jurisdiction. Reversible error cannot be error created by the appellant, either by design or
negligence, Harville v State Plumbing & Heating Co, 218 Mich App 302, 323-324; 553 NW2d
377 (1996), and thus a party’s lawyer “cannot request a certain action in the trial court and then
argue on appeal that it was error for the trial court to grant the request.” Joba Constr Co, Inc v
Burns & Roe, Inc, 121 Mich App 615, 629; 329 NW2d 760 (1982). Stated another way, “a party
may not take a position in the trial court and subsequently seek redress in an appellate court on
the basis of a position contrary to that taken in the trial court.” Phinney v Perlmutter, 222 Mich
App 513, 544; 564 NW2d 532 (1997). Because respondent’s only claim of error is predicated
upon action she herself requested, we find no basis for reversal.
-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.
