In re Wangler/Paschke, Docket No. 149537.
| Decision Date | 06 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | COA No. 318186.,Docket No. 149537. |
| Citation | 870 N.W.2d 923 (Mem),498 Mich. 911 |
| Parties | In re WANGLER/Paschke, Minors. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been granted, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties having been considered by the Court, we REVERSE the May 27, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reason that it is unclear when the trial court issued its initial dispositional order, which is the first order appealable by right. See MCR 3.993(A). Under the circumstances of this case, in which the court purported to issue dispositional orders without first adjudicating the respondent-mother, the respondent-mother's appeal should not be regarded as an impermissible collateral attack on jurisdiction. See In re Hatcher, 443 Mich. 426, 444, 505 N.W.2d 834 (1993). As to the merits of the respondent-mother's challenge, we conclude that the trial court violated MCR 3.971(C)(1) by failing to satisfy itself that the respondent-mother's plea was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made, and violated MCR 3.971(C)(2) by failing to establish support for a finding that one or more of the statutory grounds alleged in the petition were true. Therefore, the manner in which the trial court assumed jurisdiction violated the respondent-mother's due process rights. See In re Sanders, 495 Mich. 394, 415, 852 N.W.2d 524 (2014). Accordingly, we set aside the respondent-mother's plea and the subsequent adjudication and termination, and REMAND this case to the Sanilac Circuit Court, Family Division for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Because I agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent's challenge constitutes “an impermissible collateral attack on the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction,” I would affirm its decision. In re Wangler, 305 Mich.App. 438, 440, 853 N.W.2d 402 (2014). Respondent's plea, and therefore her formal adjudication, was held in “abeyance” by the trial court and, because of the confusion this caused, I agree with my colleagues that However, it is clear that the trial court accepted respondent's plea and adjudicated respondent no later than in its February 4, 2013 dispositional order (and quite arguably at an earlier juncture). That is, it is clear that at least by that date, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ferranti
...decided, whether due process concerns may override the collateral bar rule, see, In re Sanders , 495 Mich. 394 (2014), and In re Wangler , 498 Mich. 911 (2015) ; (4) whether a trial court is permitted to visit a respondent’s home to observe its condition, and, if so, what parameters should ......
-
In re Baham
...which the trial court assumed jurisdiction violated the respondent-mother's due process rights." Similarly, in In re Wangler/Paschke , 498 Mich. 911, 911, 870 N.W.2d 923 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the circuit court "violated MCR 3.971(C)(2) by failing to establish support for a fin......
-
In re Hill
...a parental termination order after the Court of Appeals held the respondent's claims were barred by Hatcher ); In re Wangler , 498 Mich. 911, 870 N.W.2d 923 (2015) (same). With all of these carve-outs, it is hard to say what is left of the Hatcher rule.Which makes sense, given the Hatcher r......
-
In re Ferranti
...process concerns may override the collateral bar rule, see, In re Sanders , 495 Mich. 394, 852 N.W.2d 524 (2014), and In re Wangler , 498 Mich. 911, 870 N.W.2d 923 (2015) ; (4) whether a trial court is permitted to visit a respondent’s home to observe its condition, and, if so, what paramet......