In re White's Adoption

• Decision Date: 06 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 97.,97.
• Citation: 300 Mich. 378,1 N.W.2d 579
• Parties: In re WHITE'S ADOPTION.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

300 Mich. 378

1 N.W.2d 579

In re WHITE'S ADOPTION.

No. 97.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 6, 1942.

Proceeding in the matter of the adoption and change of name of Constance Estelle White, a minor. From an order affirming decision of probate court made on rehearing, setting aside a former order of adoption, Guy McNaron and Sally McNaron, adoptive parents, appeal.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Arthur Webster, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Leonard F. Donaldson, of Detroit, for appellants.

John J. Temple and Miles N. Culehan, both of Detroit, for appellee.

BOYLES, Justice.

The sole question in this case is as to the validity of an order of probate court made on rehearing, setting aside a former order of adoption. The facts necessary to a decision have been stipulated by counsel. On March 16, 1939, Robert B. and Marcena White, the natural parents of a minor child, joined in the execution of a declaration of adoption with the appellants herein for the purpose of giving their consent to the proposed adoption of said minor child by appellants. An investigation was duly made by the county agent, the declaration and consent together with the report of the county agent duly filed in the probate court for the county of Wayne, and on July 31, 1939, an order confirming the adoption was made and entered by the judge of probate of Wayne county. On October 11, 1939, within the statutory 90 days during which a petition for rehearing may be filed in probate court, Act No. 288, ch. 1, § 19, Pub.Acts 1939 (Stat.Ann.1940 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178(19), Marcena White, the natural mother of said minor, filed in probate court a withdrawal of her consent and a petition for a rehearing on the order confirming the adoption. On December 1, 1939, an order was made and entered in the probate court for Wayne county as follows:

‘State of Michigan,

‘County of Wayne-ss.

‘At a session of the Probate Court for said County of Wayne, held at the Probate Court Room in the City of Detroit, on the 1st day of December, in the year one thousand nine hundred thirty-nine.

‘Present: D. J. Healy, Judge of Probate.

‘In the matter of the adoption and change of name of Constance Estelle White, a minor.

‘The petition of Marcena White, natural mother of the said Constance Estelle White, praying for a rehearing upon the instrument in writing heretofore filed in this court, declaring that said minor is adopted as the child of Guy McNaron and Sally McNaron, his wife, on which instrument by an order of this court, made and entered on the thirty-first day of July, A. D. 1939, an order of adoption by the said Guy McNaron and Sally McNaron, his wife, and change of name was ordered entered, having been heretofore filed in this court in said matter, and the said matter having come on to be heard by this court on the nineteenth day of October, A. D. 1939, and all of the persons in interest in said matter being present in open court or represented by counsel in said matter, and the said matter having been heard and submitted, and the court having taken the testimony of all of the persons in interest in said matter, and being fully advised in the premises:

‘It is ordered that a rehearing of said matter be and the same is hereby granted, and upon rehearing:

‘It is further ordered that the aforesaid order of this court made and entered on the thirty-first day of July, A. D. 1939, substituting the said Guy McNaron and Sally McNaron, his wife, in place of the parents of said minor, and changing the name of said minor, be and the same is hereby vacated and set aside.'

From that order an appeal was taken to the circuit court for the county of Wayne where a hearing way held and testimony taken, and an order entered affirming the decision of the probate court in setting aside the adoption. The circuit judge held that he did not have power to set aside the order of the probate court granting a rehearing, and that the further action of the probate court in setting aside and vacating the original order of adoption on the reharing should not be set aside by the circuit court. From the order entered thereon, the adoptive parents of said minor prosecute this appeal.

The precise questions raised for our determination are: (1) Will an appeal lie from an order of the probate court granting a rehearing? (2) Was it proper for the probate court upon the rehearing to enter the further order setting aside the order of adoption, the natural mother of the minor having withdrawn her consent to the adoption and having filed a petition for rehearing within the 90 days' period allowed therefor by statute?

Proceedings in probate court and the jurisdiction and authority of the probate court are entirely statutory. The probate court had authority to grant the rehearing on the petition of an interested party filed within 90 days from the time the original order of adoption was made. Act No. 288, ch. 1, § 19, Pub.Acts 1939 (Stat.Ann.1941 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178(19), supra. It is expressly provided by statute that no appeal shall lie from an order of the probate court granting a rehearing. At least that part of the probate court order of December 1, 1939, which merely grants a rehearing must for the purposes of this case be considered conclusive. Act No. 288, ch. 1, § 37, Pub.Acts 1939 (Stat.Ann.1941 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178(37). Nor can there be any serious question as to the authority of the probate court to enter the order setting aside a previous order confirming adoption. This is likewise expressly conferred upon the probate court by statute. Act No. 288, ch. 1, § 19, Pub.Acts 1939 (Stat.Ann.1941 Cum.Supp. § 27.3178(19), supra.

In this State, adoption proceedings are purely statutory. Act No. 288, ch....