IN RE PLACE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BELLEDONNA MARIE PLACE
and SARAH NICOLE PLACE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 30, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254871
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-025457-NA
CHRISTOPHER PLACE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental rights to his two
daughters pursuant to his plea of no contest to the petition. We affirm.
At the commencement of the permanent wardship trial, respondent’s counsel requested
that respondent’s daughter be interviewed in chambers while respondent was not present, and
indicated that he would decide how to proceed following the interview. Respondent then
watched in a separate room as his daughter stated that respondent had sexually abused her.
Following the interview, respondent’s counsel informed the court that respondent had decided
that “it would be in his children’s best interests to agree by a no contest plea that his parental
rights be terminated.” The court proceeded to accept respondent’s plea.
Respondent now argues that his right to due process was violated since the trial court
“refused to allow” him the opportunity to confront and cross-examine his daughter. This is a
gross distortion of what transpired. The trial court never even had the opportunity to “refuse to
allow” respondent the opportunity to confront and cross-examine since respondent elected to
immediately proceed with a plea rather than a trial following the requested interview.
Respondent states that this issue was not preserved below, but that the Court should
nonetheless review it as an unpreserved constitutional claim. Even if defendant’s request for the
interview outside of his presence could be construed as a denial of the right to confront and
cross-examine, respondent’s express request was not a mere failure to object. Rather, he
“expressly approved” proceeding in that manner. He has therefore waived the issue and
-1-
extinguished any error. People v Tate, 244 Mich App 553, 558; 624 NW2d 524 (2001), quoting
People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
