Opinion
363354
05-18-2023
In re MCCULLOUGH/INGRAHAM, Minors.
UNPUBLISHED
Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-110132-NA
Before: PATEL, P.J., and CAVANAGH and REDFORD, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Following a preliminary hearing, the trial court authorized a petition to remove the minor children, SM and JI, from respondent's care and placed the children with their father, who resides in Texas. Respondent now appeals the removal. During the pendency of this appeal, the trial court terminated its jurisdiction and dismissed the petition because the children were placed with their father in Texas. We dismiss this appeal as moot.
The father was never a respondent in this matter.
"The question of mootness is a threshold issue that a court must address before it reaches the substantive issues of a case." In re Tchakarova, 328 Mich.App. 172, 178; 936 N.W.2d 863 (2019). "The courts will generally refrain from deciding issues that are moot, meaning it is impossible for the court to craft an order with any practical effect on the issue." Moore v Genesee Co, 337 Mich.App. 723, 726-727; 976 N.W.2d 921 (2021). "Where the facts of a case make clear that a litigated issue has become moot, a court is, of course, bound to take note of such fact and dismiss the suit, even if the parties do not present the issue of mootness." City of Novi v Robert Adell Children's Funded Trust, 473 Mich. 242, 255 n 12; 701 N.W.2d 144 (2005). Although there are exceptions for matters of public significance that may recur yet evade review, Moore, 337 Mich.App. at 727, or where a party might remain affected by collateral legal consequences, Tchakarova, 328 Mich.App. at 178-180, neither exception appears applicable in this matter.
Respondent, the children, and their father all reside in Texas. This matter was commenced after respondent brought the children to Michigan for unclear reasons. When the trial court removed the children from respondent's care, it placed them with their father, who returned them to Texas. Respondent also returned to Texas after the removal. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the petition and terminated its jurisdiction. The trial court's order of dismissal indicated that it was "based on placement with father in Texas." It also stated that its "[p]rior orders remain in effect except as modified by this order." Nevertheless, by the order's plain terms, the court's jurisdiction was terminated except as to enforcement of "orders for reimbursement of court costs, fees, and other assessments" accrued up to the date of the order. Because the court no longer has any jurisdiction to exercise, it may not enter any additional orders. See In re Long, 326 Mich.App. 455, 460, 465; 927 N.W.2d 724 (2018). Even if we were to reverse the order authorizing the petition and removing the children, the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant respondent's request to order the children placed with her.
This appeal is therefore moot, and it is dismissed.
Sima G. Patel, Mark J. Cavanagh, James Robert Redford