IN RE HARRIS MINORS (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED November 20, 2018 In re HARRIS, Minors. Nos. 343227 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 15-519052-NA In re HARRIS, Minors. No. 343228 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 15-519052-NA Before: MURRAY, C.J., and METER and GLEICHER, JJ. GLEICHER, J. (concurring). I concur with the result reached by the majority but would analyze the jurisdictional issue raised by respondent-father somewhat differently. After an October 2016 bench trial, the trial court refused to take jurisdiction of respondents’ four older children. Implicitly, the trial court found that respondent-father had not neglected these children. Indeed, respondent-father was entrusted with their continued care and custody. The trial court took jurisdiction only with regard to RH, the youngest child, who was born three months before the trial. Apparently the trial court believed that respondent-father should have known that respondent-mother was using drugs during her pregnancy with RH and somehow prevented her from doing so, despite its concomitant finding that respondent-parents were not living together. In my view, inadequate evidence supported jurisdiction as to respondent-father. The majority correctly observes that under the current state of the law, a respondent may not collaterally attack a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction after the trial court has terminated the respondent’s parental rights. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). Our Supreme Court recently heard argument in a case challenging whether Hatcher was correctly decided. In re Ferranti (Supreme Court Docket Nos. 157907, 157908). I cannot predict whether Hatcher will survive. If the Supreme Court overrules it, however, I believe that Hatcher’s application in this case would amount to harmless error. In -1- 2017, petitioner filed a new petition seeking jurisdiction of the older four children. The evidence subsequently presented focused on events that occurred after the first adjudication trial. The trial court properly assumed jurisdiction of the four older children based on new, up-to-date evidence. Respondent-father has raised no argument that the trial court’s earlier and improper assumption of jurisdiction infected the subsequent proceedings or prejudiced his ability to avoid the later jurisdictional finding. Accordingly, I concur that respondent-father has not established a basis for disturbing the trial court’s termination ruling. /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher -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.
