IN RE HANNAH NEALY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HANNAH NEALY, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 18, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 233393
Midland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000695-NA
SARAH NEALY,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and Gotham*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights to the minor child following her
voluntary release of parental rights under the Adoption Code, MCL 710.21 et. seq. The court
denied respondent’s subsequent request to vacate her release. Respondent now appeals as of
right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
After a thorough review, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to deny
respondent’s request for relief. The release was executed following the court’s full compliance
with the statutory requirements, and the transcript of the release hearing unequivocally
establishes that respondent’s release was freely and voluntarily given. MCL 710.29(6); In re
Blankenship, 165 Mich App 706, 711-712; 418 NW2d 919 (1988); In re Myers, 131 Mich App
160, 164; 345 NW2d 663 (1983). Further, respondent’s claim that the court erred in failing to
inform her of the impact a release might have on parental rights to future children is neither
preserved nor supported by legal authority. See Booth Newspapers, Inc. v U of M Bd of Regents,
444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d 422 (1993), and Palo Group Foster Care, Inc v Dep’t of Social
Services, 228 Mich App 140, 152; 577 NW2d 200 (1998). Accordingly, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s request to vacate her release of parental rights. In re
Curran, 196 Mich App 380, 385; 493 NW2d 454 (1992).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Roy D. Gotham
-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.
