IN RE LAURENCE MITCHELL TILLEY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter
TILLEY, Minor.
of
LAURENCE
MITCHELL
BONNIE TILLEY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 13, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249164
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2003-002743-RB
BRIAN SUTHERLAND,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Griffin and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.39(1). Because respondent never established a
custodial, personal, or financial relationship with the child, and because respondent failed to
request custody at the adoption/ termination of parental rights hearing, we affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b).
On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights
because his request for a DNA test at the April 9, 2003, hearing was really a request for custody.
We disagree. Under MCL 710.31(1), when a child is born out of wedlock, a trial court cannot
approve a petition for adoption without first terminating the parental rights of the biological
father pursuant to either MCL 710.37 or MCL 710.39. In re TMK, 242 Mich App 302, 304; 617
NW2d 925 (2000). In such a case, the putative father must either request custody, MCL
710.39(1), or deny his interest in custody, MCL 710.37(1). Id., at 305. In order to properly
object to the termination of parental rights, MCL 710.39(1) required respondent to request
custody. Id. Respondent’s failure to request custody “was therefore tantamount to a denial of
interest in custody and permitted the trial court to terminate his parental rights” under MCL
710.37(1)(d) (father appears and denies custody). Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Respondent also argues that he was denied equal protection of the law when the trial
court required him to request custody of the minor child at the hearing. However, respondent
cites no authority to support his assertion that requiring a putative father to request custody is a
-1-
denial of equal protection. Respondent may not leave it to this Court to search for authority to
sustain or reject his position. Staff v Johnson, 242 Mich App 521, 529; 610 NW2d 57 (2000). In
any event, this Court in In re RFF, 242 Mich App 188, 209; 617 NW2d 745 (2000), concluded
that termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to MCL 710.39(1), which requires
respondent to request custody of the child, was not a violation of a putative father’s equal
protection rights.
Respondent further argues that he was denied equal protection by petitioner’s refusal of
respondent’s repeated offers of support, which caused his rights to be considered under
subsection 39(1), instead of subsection 39(2). However, a review of the record reveals that
respondent did not make repeated offers of support or that petitioner made any attempt to thwart
respondent’s involvement in her pregnancy or the child’s life. Accordingly, the trial court’s
order terminating respondent’s parental rights did not deny respondent his equal protection
rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Richard A. Griffin
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
