Opinion
356586
10-28-2021
In re J. BRENNER, Minor.
UNPUBLISHED
Kent Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 19-052304-NA
Before: Stephens, P.J., and Sawyer and Servitto, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to JB. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
At a termination hearing, respondent voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to JB. The trial court explained to respondent the options available to her and asked her a series of questions that sought to establish that respondent's relinquishment of her parental rights was made voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly. Only after the extensive explanation of her rights and the consequences of relinquishing them did the respondent admit to the grounds for termination and assert that the termination was in the best interests of the minor. Respondent told the trial court that it was in JB's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights. Respondent now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Respondent does not assert that there was a defect in the procedure surrounding her voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights, nor does she maintain that her relinquishment was not made voluntarily, knowingly, or understandingly. Instead, respondent argues in a three-page brief that the trial court erred when it failed to make a finding of fact as to the best interests of the minor.
When a party intentionally abandons or relinquishes a known right, that issue is waived. People v Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 215; 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). When an issue is waived, the party has extinguished any error, and may not seek appellate review of that issue. Id. A respondent may not assign as error on appeal something that she deemed proper in the lower court. In re Hudson, 294 Mich.App. 261, 264; 817 N.W.2d 115 (2011). Allowing respondent to do so would permit respondent to harbor error as an appellate parachute. Id.
When respondent told the trial court that it was in JB's best interests for her parental rights to be terminated and then voluntarily relinquished those rights, respondent waived her right to argue on appeal that termination of her parental rights is not in JB's best interests. See Carter, 462 Mich. at 215; In re Hudson, 294 Mich.App. at 264. In support of her argument that a remand is necessary, respondent points out that the trial court did not make factual findings on the record regarding the best interests of JB. She offers no argument or evidence to counter her own admission that termination was in JB's interests. The record supports her admission. JB was removed from the respondent's care in 2017 due to being born with drugs in his system. He was returned to respondent's care in 2019 and a contested hearing was held during which testimony was received regarding respondents CPS and drug history (which began in 2013). Numerous review hearings were held evidencing respondent's unsuccessful battle against the conditions which led to JB's care and a supplemental petition for termination was filed in 2020. Nothing in this record supports affording respondent an appellate parachute. See In re Hudson, 294 Mich.App. at 264. Moreover, respondent waived this issue and, therefore, extinguished any error.
Affirmed.