Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of ANGELO BLACKBURN, Minor.

MARLENA DEBELISO, Petitioner-Appellee, v CHRISTOPHER BLACKBURN, Respondent-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED February 14, 2006

No. 262419 Oakland Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 04-700101-AD

CHRISTOPHER BLACKBURN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v MARLENA ANNE DEBELISO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 263474 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 04-701484-DP

Before: Murray, P.J., and Cavanagh and Saad, JJ. PER CURIAM. In Docket No. 262419, respondent, Christopher Blackburn, appeals as of right from the trial court opinion and order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.39 of the Adoption Code. In Docket No. 263474, Christopher Blackburn was the plaintiff in an action brought under the Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq., and he now appeals by leave granted from the order denying his motion for summary disposition brought under MCL 722.716 and MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm in both cases but remand in Docket No. 263474 for the trial court to enter a final order dismissing the action as moot. The Adoption Case In Docket No. 262419, petitioner is the minor child's biological mother and respondent is the child's putative father. Petitioner, who was 20 years old, sought to have the minor child placed for adoption through an agency and sought termination of respondent's parental rights -1-


under MCL 710.39. During the pendency of that action, respondent filed the paternity action and sought to consolidate the two cases. The trial court declined to consolidate the two cases, resolved the adoption matter first, and terminated respondent's parental rights to the child. On appeal, respondent first contends that the trial court developed a different standard than that intended by the Legislature in MCL 710.39(2) when the court determined that the established custodial relationship must be "current" and that respondent was required to "preserve or attempt to preserve" it. Respondent also contends that the court erred in finding that there was not an established custodial relationship between respondent and the minor child. We disagree. The question whether the trial court developed a different standard than that required by the language of MCL 710.39(2) is a question of statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. In re RFF, 242 Mich App 188, 198; 617 NW2d 745 (2000). "The primary goal of judicial interpretation of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." In re Lang, 236 Mich App 129, 136; 600 NW2d 646 (1999). "In enacting the Adoption Code, the Legislature sought, inter alia, to establish procedures to safeguard and promote the best interests of the adoptee and to provide for speedy resolution of disputes concerning a putative father's rights where placement of a child for adoption is sought." Id., citing MCL 710.21a. Upon review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to conclude that there was an established custodial relationship between respondent and the minor child during the threemonth period when the child lived with respondent. However, the evidence was undisputed that after September 4, 2004, respondent made no attempt to contact the child and did not have any contact with the child. Thus, at the time of the hearing, the evidence was sufficient to show that there was no established custodial environment between respondent and child. The trial court's holding was consistent with the present-tense language used by the Legislature which reveal an intention that, in order to come within the provisions of

Download CHRISTOPHER BLACKBURN V MARLENA ANNE DEBELISO.pdf

Michigan Law