Prater, In re

Decision Date20 May 1991
Docket NumberDocket No. 125323
PartiesIn re PRATER. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Darlene DAVIS and Reginald Prater, Respondent-Appellants. 189 Mich.App. 330, 471 N.W.2d 658
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

[189 MICHAPP 331] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., and William C. Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Dept. of Social Services.

Scott F. Bergo, Detroit, for minor children.

Carolyn A. Blanchard, Detroit, for Darlene Davis and Reginald Prater.

Before WEAVER, P.J., and MacKENZIE and GRIBBS, JJ.

WEAVER, Presiding Judge.

Darlene Davis and Reginald Prater are before us appealing an order terminating their parental rights to their three minor children, Karlene Lee Prater, Reginald Karl Prater, and Ashley Nicole Prater. We affirm.

This action originated when a petition alleging neglect of Karlene and Reginald was filed on September 25, 1987, while Davis was pregnant with Ashley. At the pretrial hearing, respondents admitted the allegations set forth in the petition. They were living with the children in a home furnished with only a stove, a kitchen table, a television, and a mattress. The home's other furnishings had been sold by respondents in order to purchase cocaine. Both respondents acknowledged using cocaine, and Davis admitted that she was addicted to it. Prater testified that he was not supporting the children, although he was living with the mother, and that he was not receiving general assistance because he was not willing to fill out the monthly report. The court ordered that the children be placed in the temporary custody of [189 MICHAPP 332] the court and live with the maternal grandfather and stepgrandmother.

When Ashley was born on November 21, 1987, she was immediately placed in foster care by the Department of Social Services. The case was initially set for February 2, 1988. However, it was adjourned a number of times in an attempt to achieve personal service on the respondents. At a hearing on April 22, 1988, Davis informed the court that she had not been allowed to see her children since January of 1988. The social worker stated that she had used visitation as an incentive for the mother to participate in court-ordered drug screening and that the mother had as yet failed to participate in the screening. At the close of the hearing, the court concluded that returning the children to the family home would be contrary to their welfare and recommended that the foster placement continue.

A series of statutory rehearings continued until April 12, 1989, when the court scheduled a permanency planning hearing. At the close of the permanency planning hearing, the referee recommended that the children be placed in the permanent custody of the court and committed to the Michigan Children's Institute for purposes of adoption. Respondents' petition for rehearing was heard on December 12, 1989, and the court found that the referee did not err in her findings of fact or her conclusions of law.

I

Appellants contend that the court lacked jurisdiction over Ashley Prater because the adjudication was improperly scheduled for more than forty-two days after the preliminary hearing.

Respondents correctly point out that the court [189 MICHAPP 333] rule in effect at the commencement of these proceedings mandated that the adjudicative hearing take...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. John Doe
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 2010
    ...that in Illinois, violation of the forty-eight-hour shelter care hearing requirement is not jurisdictional); In re Prater, 189 Mich.App. 330, 471 N.W.2d 658, 659 (1991) (holding, in a termination of parental rights case, that failure to comply with the statutory rule requiring that an adjud......
  • Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare v. Doe, 37746.
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 2010
    ...(holding that in Illinois, violation of the forty-eight-hour shelter care hearing requirement is not jurisdictional); In re Prater, 189 Mich.App. 330, 471 N.W.2d 658, 659 (1991) (holding, in a termination of parental rights case, that failure to comply with the statutory rule requiring that......
  • Idaho Dep't Of Health v. John Doe I
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 2010
    ...that in Illinois, violation of the forty-eight-hour shelter care hearing requirement is not jurisdictional); In re Prater, 471 N.W.2d 658, 659 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (holding, in a termination of parental rights case, that failure to comply with the statutory rule requiring that an adjudicat......
  • Jackson, Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 1, 1993
    ...Kirkwood, supra at 545-546, 468 N.W.2d 280. See also In re Pardee, 190 Mich.App. 243, 252, 475 N.W.2d 870 (1991); In re Prater, 189 Mich.App. 330, 333, 471 N.W.2d 658 (1991) (failure to comply with court rule does not affect jurisdiction of the Respondent has not shown prejudice. Even if th......
  • 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