IN RE TIMMOTHY TRAVIS SMITH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TIMMOTHY TRAVIS SMITH,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 3, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 205456
Branch Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-009215 NA
BRYAN SCOTT SMITH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARRY ELLEN HORSLEY,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and MacKenzie and N.O. Holowka*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Smith appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent Smith argues that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion for rehearing of its
order terminating his parental rights. The motion for rehearing was not timely filed, MCL 712A.21(1);
MSA 27.3178(598.21)(1); MCR 5.992(A). Furthermore, a claim of appeal had already been filed
with this Court when respondent Smith filed his motion for rehearing. Because jurisdiction was already
with this Court at the time the motion was filed, respondent Smith was required to seek leave in this
Court before the juvenile court could address the merits of his motion, MCR 7.208(A). Co-Jo, Inc v
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Strand, 226 Mich App 108, 118; 572 NW2d 251 (1997). Despite respondent Smith’s failure to
timely file the motion and seek leave of this Court, we will address the merits of his argument.
This Court reviews the juvenile court’s refusal to grant a rehearing for an abuse of discretion. In
re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 478; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). The juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion on the merits of the motion. Respondent Smith failed to present any matter for the court to
consider that was not previously presented or that would have caused the court to reconsider its
decision. Id. The caseworker’s report to the juvenile court at the termination hearing included a
statement about respondent Smith’s change of plans concerning custody of the child and his decision to
move so that he could obtain custody. In arguing for a rehearing of the court’s order, respondent Smith
relied upon these same reasons. The juvenile court was well aware of the change in his situation at the
time of the termination hearing, yet the court obviously did not believe that the outcome of this case
would have changed. Respondent Smith was therefore not entitled to a rehearing.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Nick O. Holowka
-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.
