IN RE TURPEN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_________________________________________
In the Matter of M.T., A.T., and A.T., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 5, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234176
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-024616-NA
DEBORAH REESE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHRISTOPHER TURPEN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of M.T., A.T., and A.T., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234519
Washtenaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-024616-NA
CHRISTOPHER TURPEN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEBORAH REESE,
Respondent.
1
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent mother appeals as of right from the trial court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g),
and respondent father appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm in both cases.
This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We have carefully reviewed the lower court record and conclude that the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and
convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of each
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
In Docket No. 234519, respondent father argues that he is entitled to a new termination
hearing because a referee who presided over a permanency planning hearing on September 30,
1999, had previously appeared in the case as a prosecutor for the Family Independence Agency in
October 1997. Respondent father failed to properly preserve this issue for appellate review by
moving to disqualify the referee pursuant to MCR 2.003. Meagher v Wayne State Univ, 222
Mich App 700, 725; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). Because he has failed to show that he was
prejudiced by plain error in this regard, reversal is not required on this basis. People v Carines,
460 Mich 750, 774; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). In sum, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed in both cases.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/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.
