864 N.W.2d 139 (Mich. 2015), SC 151039, In re McCarthy
|Docket Nº:||SC 151039|
|Citation:||864 N.W.2d 139, 497 Mich. 1035|
|Party Name:||In re N. S. A. McCARTHY, Minor|
|Judge Panel:||Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice. Stephen J. Markman, Mary Beth Kelly, Brian K. Zahra, Bridget M. McCormack, ,David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Justices. YOUNG, C.J. (concurring/dissenting). VIVIANO, J., joins the statement of YOUNG, C.J. Young, C.J. ( concurring/dissenting ). VIVIANO, J...|
|Case Date:||June 05, 2015|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Michigan|
COA: 318855. Oakland CC Family Division: 07-739244-NA.
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration and the motion to expand the record are GRANTED. On May 5, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings, including, within 60 days, a permanency planning hearing conducted pursuant to MCL 712A.19c. At that hearing, the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to appoint a guardianship with the child's grandparents. In determining the best interests of the child, the court may utilize the factors provided in MCL 722.23, including " [t]he reasonable preference of the child . . . ." In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
In denying this appeal, the Court has made no determination that the family court erred by finding that termination of respondent's parental rights was in the child's best interests. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that part of the Court's order that presumes to direct the family court's future actions. I see no legitimate basis for this Court to enter an order remanding for a permanency planning hearing to consider whether to appoint a guardianship with the child's grandparents. That may be an appropriate consideration, but it is not our call to make.
The issue raised, briefed, and argued before this Court had nothing to do with the family court's post termination proceedings. The majority's order in this case is, in my view, disrespectful of the family court as well [497 Mich. 1036] as the parties, including the lawyer-guardian ad litem, who might...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP