IN RE ANDRE MARIE GILBERT AND BOBBIE JENKS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BOBBIE KAYANN JENKS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 20, 2004
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 254309
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-003140-NA
JODI LYNN GILBERT and DEREK JENKS,
Respondents-Appellees.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Petitioner appeals by leave granted the March 8, 2004, order allowing respondents to
have parenting time with the minor child while proceedings on an amended petition to terminate
their parental rights were pending.1 We dismiss the appeal as moot.
“A case is moot when it presents only abstract questions of law that do not rest upon
existing facts or rights.” B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d
117 (1998). “An issue is deemed moot when an event occurs that renders it impossible for a
reviewing court to grant relief.” Id.
Here, petitioner argues that the trial court issued its order allowing parenting time in
contravention of MCL 712A.19b(4) and MCR 3.977(D), which provide that a trial court may
allow parenting time after a petition to terminate parental rights is filed only if the parent
establishes, and the trial court determines, that parenting time will not harm the child. After
petitioner filed its appeal brief, however, an order was entered on April 16, 2004, providing that
the request to terminate respondents’ parental rights has been withdrawn. Because there is no
longer a pending request to terminate respondents’ parental rights to the minor child, the basis
1
This Court’s order granting leave to appeal stayed visitation “pending further order of this
Court or until such time as the visitation issue becomes moot.”
-1-
for petitioner’s argument that parenting time should not be allowed no longer exits.
therefore dismiss this appeal as moot.
Dismissed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
We
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.
