Dupras, Matter of, Docket No. 69566

Decision Date28 February 1985
Docket NumberDocket No. 69566
Citation363 N.W.2d 26,140 Mich.App. 171
PartiesIn the Matter of James R. DUPRAS, Jr., & Cheryl Dupras, Minors. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. James R. DUPRAS, Sr., Respondent-Appellant. 140 Mich.App. 171, 363 N.W.2d 26
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[140 MICHAPP 172] Gary L. Walker, Pros. Atty., and David A. Payant, Asst. Pros. Atty., Marquette, for Department of Social Services.

Theodore F. Fulsher, Marquette, for respondent-appellant.

Seitz, Osstyn, Bays & Ferns by Donald W. Bays, Marquette, Guardian Ad Litem for James R. Dupras, Jr., and Cheryl Dupras, minors.

Before MAHER, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and GRIBBS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals as of right from the probate court's opinion and order terminating his parental rights in James Dupras, Jr., and Cheryl Dupras. On appeal, respondent challenges both the court's initial assumption of jurisdiction over the children at the adjudicative stage of the proceedings and the final decision to terminate parental rights. After carefully reviewing the lower court records and the briefs filed by respondent, petitioner, and the guardian ad litem, we conclude that the probate court's order should be affirmed.

Respondent first alleges that the probate court erred by assuming jurisdiction over the children at the adjudicative phase based only upon the general admissions to the allegations in the petition by respondent and his wife (Mrs. Isola Dupras, the children's step-mother) which were immediately [140 MICHAPP 173] contradicted by the sworn testimony of Mrs. Dupras. Respondent argues that such "admissions" can not constitute "a valid plea in confession" within the meaning of JCR 1969, 8.3(a) and that, therefore, the court assumed jurisdiction without any evidentiary basis. We do not reach this issue, however, because we find that this Court does not have jurisdiction in this appeal to review the evidence (or lack of evidence) introduced by petitioner during the adjudicative stage to determine whether or not sufficient facts were alleged to allow jurisdiction to attach in the probate court.

In In the Matter of Kathren Adrianson and Purcall Adrianson, 105 Mich.App. 300, 306 N.W.2d 487 (1981), a panel of this Court examined the various stages of a probate court proceeding to terminate parental rights and concluded that the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in any appeal to review the adequacy of the allegations in the original petition submitted to the probate court. The Adrianson Court concluded that the issue of the legal adequacy of the allegations in the petition went to the probate court's complete lack of jurisdiction and that, therefore, the probate court's determination to take jurisdiction based on inadequate allegations was void ab initio. Such an issue could therefore be raised in either a direct or collateral appeal. However, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence introduced during the adjudicative stage constituted a challenge to the probate court's exercise of jurisdiction and could therefore only be challenged in a direct appeal.

In this case, respondent does not contend that the allegations in the petition are inadequate. Instead, he argues that the evidence introduced in the adjudicative stage was insufficient. The argument thus falls within the second category discussed in Adrianson and is only reviewable by this [140 MICHAPP 174] Court in a direct appeal. Respondent, however, did not challenge the probate court's December 10, 1979, determination to assume jurisdiction over the children until November 30,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Schmeltzer, Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 28 Abril 1989
    ...whether an aggrieved parent may collaterally attack alleged errors occurring at the adjudicative hearing. Compare In re Dupras, 140 Mich.App. 171, 173, 363 N.W.2d 26 (1984), and In re Adrianson, 105 Mich.App. 300, 311, 306 N.W.2d 487 (1981) (not permitting collateral attack), with In re Fer......
  • Gass, Matter of, Docket No. 103392
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 31 Enero 1989
    ...151 Mich.App. 736, 391 N.W.2d 468 (1986); but see In re Adrianson, 105 Mich.App. 300, 306 N.W.2d 487 (1981), and In re Dupras, 140 Mich.App. 171, 363 N.W.2d 26 (1984). Accordingly, our inquiry is whether any error alleged to have occurred at the adjudicative hearing was of such a magnitude ......
  • Waite, Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 1 Abril 1991
    ...only be challenged on direct appeal, not collaterally. In re Adrianson, 105 Mich.App. 300, 306 N.W.2d 487 (1981); In re Dupras, 140 Mich.App. 171, 363 N.W.2d 26 (1984). Subsequently, however, another panel decided In re Ferris, 151 Mich.App. 736, 744, 391 N.W.2d 468 (1986), and held that er......
  • Ferris, Matter of, Docket No. 84900
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 15 Agosto 1986
    ...Mich.App. 300, 306 N.W.2d 487 (1981). The Adrianson decision was followed by this Court in the recent case of In the Matter of Dupras, 140 Mich.App. 171, 363 N.W.2d 26 (1984). If we were convinced that Adrianson is correct, we could summarily dispose of this case, concluding that this Court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT