If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED

In re TENNY, Minors. June 23, 2022

No. 357942

Macomb Circuit Court

Family Division

LC Nos. 2020-000030-NA

 2020-000031-NA

 2020-000032-NA

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and SHAPIRO and PATEL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this child protective proceeding, respondent-mother appeals by right1a trial court order 

removing the minor children, BT, VT, and ST, from her care and custody and placing them with 

their legal father. We find that the issues raised are moot because events that occurred after the 

order was entered have rendered it impossible for this Court to grant relief. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. PRIOR EVENTS

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) involvement began in 2014 

following allegations that the legal father sexually abused VT and BT. An investigation resulted 

in criminal charges and a petition to terminate the legal father’s parental rights.

2 Respondent was 

 

1 The lawyer-guardian ad litem (LGAL) and the legal father contend that this Court lacks 

jurisdiction under MCR 3.973(H) because the order appealed from did not terminate respondent’s 

parental rights. However, MCR 3.993(A) authorizes an appeal as of right from “any order 

removing a child from a parent’s care and custody.” The July 8, 2021 order specified that 

“[Department of Health and Human Services] shall remove the children from the care of the natural 

mother and place with the legal father.” Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

2 A few weeks before the petition was filed, respondent filed for divorce from the legal father. The 

divorce was final in April 2016, but custody issues continue to arise in the domestic matter. 
-2-

granted interim legal and physical custody of the children, while the legal father’s visitation was 

suspended without objection. Because respondent secured interim full legal and physical custody 

in the domestic matter, DHHS withdrew its petition. A jury found the legal father not guilty of all 

criminal charges in 2016, at which time he began reunification efforts with the children. 

From 2016 through 2019, there were several referrals to CPS. The children made numerous 

allegations of sexual abuse and molestation against the legal father. There were also allegations of 

physical abuse and improper supervision against respondent. None of the allegations against the 

legal father were substantiated, but the allegations of improper supervision against respondent 

were substantiated.

In January 2020, the LGAL filed a petition for jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b)(1). 

The allegations included improper supervision, failure to comply with referrals and 

recommendations, failure to follow through on recommendations for the children, and use of 

physical discipline. It was also alleged that respondent denied the legal father his right to exercise 

his parenting time since November 2019. The parties agreed that DHHS would assume care and 

supervision of the children while they remained in respondent’s custody pursuant to the custody 

order in the domestic matter.

3

Individual parent-agency agreements were established for 

respondent and the legal father. The agreements included psychological assessments for the 

parents and children, supported parenting time for the legal father, therapy for the parents and 

children, and in-home services. 

In May 2021, the trial court expanded the legal father’s parenting time to unsupervised 

overnight weekend visitation as provided in the custody order in the domestic matter. And 

respondent was ordered to not interfere with the parenting time. The trial court’s involvement was 

limited to aiding the children in transitioning to the parenting time schedule established in the 

domestic matter. Because respondent’s attorney made statements regarding the children’s 

adjustment to visitation that were not reported to the case worker, therapist, or the LGAL, the trial 

court ordered that the children be afforded an opportunity to meet with a professional at each 

parenting time exchange to address any concerns that the children may have. 

The children completed their first unsupervised overnight weekend visitation with the legal 

father in June 2021. The case worker met with the children before they were returned to 

respondent. The children did not raise any issues with the visit. However, on the following day, 

ST told the therapist that his legal father “did it again.” When the therapist questioned ST further,

ST simply stated that his father did “the same thing as last time.” The therapist reported that ST 

did not exhibit any signs of trauma in his follow up visits. A CARE House interview was 

conducted. ST made disclosures during the interview that were identical to the 2019 disclosures

that were previously unsubstantiated. Respondent was instructed that the children’s unsupervised 

weekend visitation with the legal father would proceed as scheduled from July 2, 2021 to July 6, 

2021.

 

3 The legal father had supervised parenting time pursuant to the custody order. 
-3-

B. MOTION TO CHANGE PLACEMENT

Respondent failed to bring the children for their scheduled unsupervised weekend visitation 

with the legal father in July 2021. On July 6, 2021, the LGAL filed a motion to change placement

of the children to the legal father’s care and custody. A hearing was conducted on July 8, 2021. 

Respondent failed to appear for the hearing. However, her current attorney was present and was 

afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the therapist and DHHS workers. No witnesses were 

called to testify on behalf of respondent. The trial court found that respondent had caused 

emotional harm to the children by interfering with the legal father’s parenting time and 

reunification efforts. In particular, the trial court concluded that respondent repeatedly coached the 

children to make false allegations of sexual abuse that were not corroborated by any evidence. The 

trial court released the children to the care and custody of the legal father under the supervision of 

DHHS. Respondent was granted supervised visitation.

C. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Because respondent and the children could not be located, on July 13, 2021, the trial court 

entered orders to take the children into custody and respondent was placed on absent without legal 

permission status. On July 27, 2021, while respondent’s whereabouts were still unknown, her 

attorney filed a claim of appeal from the trial court’s July 8, 2021, order changing placement of 

the children. 

Respondent was located in Florida on August 1, 2021. The children were taken into police 

custody and released to the care and custody of the legal father with DHHS supervision. On 

August 12, 2021, the trial court ordered that the children would remain with the legal father under 

the care and supervision of DHHS. Respondent’s parenting time was limited to supervised 

visitation.

On September 15, 2021, the trial court placed the children in the custody of the legal father 

“consistent with the custody order in [the domestic matter].” The order noted that the legal father 

had secured sole physical and legal custody of the children in the domestic matter, that 

respondent’s parenting time had been suspended in the domestic matter, and that criminal charges 

were pending against respondent because she absconded with the children.4 The order further 

stated that the trial court’s jurisdiction was terminated.

On October 20, 2021, the trial court suspended respondent’s parenting time. Respondent 

was ordered to engage in therapy for a minimum of one month. Upon completion of the therapy, 

respondent was able to resume her parenting time once weekly by recorded Zoom sessions

 

4 Respondent was charged with felony kidnapping pursuant to MCL 750.350a (custodial 

interference).
-4-

supervised by the therapist. These parenting time conditions were ordered to continue until 

completion of the criminal matter,

5

at which time objections to the custody order would be 

addressed in the domestic matter. 

The register of actions for each of the children includes an October 25, 2021, entry stating 

that each case was discharged on September 14, 2021, and that all future hearings should be 

scheduled in the domestic matter.

II. ANALYSIS

Respondent’s appeal focuses on alleged procedural deficiencies and evidentiary errors that 

occurred at the July 8, 2021, hearing. Respondent argues that the trial court abused its discretion 

ordering that the children be placed with the legal father following the alleged procedurallydefective hearing. We find this appeal moot. 

“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 NW2d 863 

(2019). “An issue is moot if an event has occurred that renders it impossible for the court, if it 

should decide in favor of the party, to grant relief.” City of Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC,

239 Mich App 482, 493; 608 NW2d 531 (2000) (citation omitted). A moot case “is one which 

seeks to get a judgment . . . upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have 

any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy.” People v Richmond, 486 Mich 29, 34-

35, 782 NW2d 187 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[R]eviewing a moot question 

would be a purposeless proceeding.” Id. at 35 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, as a 

general rule, we will not review a moot issue. Id.

Even if an issue is moot, it is justiciable if the issue is: (1) one of public significance,6(2) 

likely to recur, and (3) likely to evade judicial review. Gleason v Kincaid, 323 Mich App 308, 315; 

917 NW2d 685 (2018). However, our appellate courts have declined to apply this exception “when 

the party seeking review of an issue on appeal has rendered the issue moot by that party’s own 

volitional conduct and the party could have avoided mooting the issue by seeking an appeal.” 

Richmond, 486 Mich at 37. That is precisely what happened here. Respondent rendered the issues 

moot when she intentionally violated the trial court’s orders7and absconded with her children to 

Florida. Respondent could have obtained judicial review by filing an immediate claim of appeal 

pursuant to MCR 3.993(A)(1). But her voluntary actions resulted in a criminal charge, which led 

to an award of interim sole legal and physical custody to the legal father in the domestic matter. 

Thereafter, the trial court ended its jurisdiction in this case. Now, all of the custody issues are being 

 

5 As of the date of this opinion, the criminal matter is still pending. 

6 Respondent argues that her procedural due process rights were violated. A due process violation

is an issue of public significance. See In re Tchakarova, 328 Mich App 172, 180-181; 936 NW2d 

863 (2019).

7 This includes the May 25, 2021 order granting the legal father unsupervised parenting time and 

directing respondent to “not interfere with the father exercising his parenting time.” 
-5-

addressed in the domestic matter. We decline to address an otherwise moot issue that respondent 

rendered moot by her own conduct.

8

Dismissed as moot.

/s/ Jane E. Markey

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Sima G. Patel 

 

8 On January 7, 2022, respondent filed a motion to expand the record to include the surveillance 

video which was on a thumb drive. This Court granted respondent’s motion on January 20, 2022. 

We have reviewed the entire thumb drive and have found no evidence that would persuade this 

Court to change its findings or conclusions.