IN RE ANDREW YOST MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.B., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 2, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236288
Oscoda Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000153-NA
ROSEANNE YOST,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID YOST,
Respondent.
In the Matter of J.B., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236289
Oscoda Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000154-NA
ROSEANNE YOST,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID YOST,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of M.Y., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
DAVID H. YOST and ROSEANNE M. YOST,
No. 236290
Oscoda Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000155-NA
Respondents-Appellants.
In the Matter of A.Y., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
DAVID H. YOST and ROSEANNE M. YOST,
No. 236291
Oscoda Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-000156-NA
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right the August 3,
2001 orders terminating their parental rights to the minor children. Respondents-appellants’
parental rights were terminated pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g) and (i). We
affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
Respondents-appellants raise several procedural issues, none of which has merit. They
contend that the termination order must be reversed because the trial court failed to hold the
adjudicative trial and termination hearing within the time requirements of MCR 5.972(A) and
MCR 5.973(A)(2), respectively. They also contend that the termination order is erroneous
because petitioner-appellee failed to file a case service plan as required by MCL 712A.18f.
Respondents-appellants’ argument concerning the adjudicative trial is not properly before this
Court because it is, in substance, an improper collateral attack on the trial court’s jurisdiction in
an appeal of the order terminating their parental rights. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505
NW2d 834 (1993); In re Bechard, 211 Mich App 155, 159-160; 535 NW2d 220 (1995).
-2-
Furthermore, all of these arguments are meritless. None of the procedural statutes or court rules
that respondents-appellants invoke provides a sanction for petitioner-appellee’s noncompliance,
so this Court will decline to impose its own sanction for the alleged procedural defects. In re
Prater, 189 Mich App 330, 333; 471 NW2d 659 (1991); In re Kirkwood, 187 Mich App 542,
546; 468 NW2d 280 (1991).
Respondents-appellants also contend that the trial court violated MCR 5.912(A)(2) when
the same trial judge presided at both the preliminary inquiry and the adjudicative trial. MCR
5.912(A)(2), however, applies to designated hearings in delinquency matters, and has no bearing
on a child protective proceeding.
Finally, respondents-appellants argue that the trial court improperly read the entire
petition to the jury without specifically stating that respondents-appellants denied the allegations.
This issue is an improper collateral attack on the trial court’s jurisdiction. Hatcher, supra 443
Mich 444. Furthermore, the issue lacks substantive merit. This Court reviews jury instructions
in their entirety to determine if the trial court made an error that requires reversal. People v Katt,
248 Mich App 282, 310; 639 NW2d 815 (2002). We review claims of improper judicial
statements to determine if the trial court’s conduct was impartial or if it could have influenced
the jury to the detriment of the party’s case. People v Cheeks, 216 Mich App 470, 480-481; 549
NW2d 584 (1996). We find no error here. The trial court clearly instructed the jury that it was
the factfinder in the case and that petitioner-appellee bore the burden of proving the allegations.
The jury could not have inferred from these instructions that respondents-appellants were not
contesting the allegations.
Affirmed.
E. Thomas Fitzgerald
Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
Martin M. Doctoroff
-3-
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.
