Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF BABY GIRL FLETCHER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-06-08
Citations: 76 Mich. App. 219
Docket Number: Docket No. 31038
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF BABY GIRL FLETCHER
Judges: Before: M. J. Kelly, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and R. M. Maher, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 76
Pages: 219–226

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF BABY GIRL FLETCHER
Opinion op the Court
1. Courts — Probate Courts — Adoption—Jurisdiction—Revocation.
A probate court lacks jurisdiction and may not grant a hearing to consider whether a child adoption release should be revoked unless the Michigan Department of Social Services or the child placing agency acquiesces in the petition (MCLA 710.29[9]; MSA 27.3178[555.29] [9]).
2. Courts — Probate Courts — Adoption—Michigan Adoption Code —Judge’s Discretion — Welfare of Child.
A trial judge has statutory discretion to decide a petition to set aside a child adoption release under the Michigan Adoption Code, but he does not have to rely on the adoption statute and may decide the petition on what he considers to be the best interests of the child (MCLA 710.29[9], 710.64[1]; MSA 27.3178[555.29] [9], 27.3178[555.64] [1]).
3. Appeal and Error — Adoption—Welfare of Children — Legislative Determination — Judicial Policy.
Remand to the Probate Court is inappropriate to investigate whether an infant’s mother was told prior to an adoption release that she had 20 days to change her mind where the issue did not surface until oral arguments on appeal, because the Legislature has determined that finality in these matters is beneficial to the well-being of the children involved and this coincides with the judicial policy of not considering matters first raised on appeal.
Dissent by M. J. Kelly, P. J.
4. Appeal and Error — Adoption—Michigan Adoption Code — Probate Orders.
All orders entered under the Michigan Adoption Code, including a probate court order denying a child adoption release, are appealable directly to the Michigan Court of Appeals within 20 days after the date of entry (MCLA 710.65; MSA 27.31781555.65]).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 2 Am Jur 2d, Adoption § 76.
20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 104.
[2] 2 Am Jur 2d, Adoption § 82.
[3, 5] 2 Am Jur 2d, Adoption § 46.
[4] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 134.
5. Appeal and Error — Adoption—Probate Court — Remand—Evidentiary Hearing.
Proper appellate review, where the verbatim record of testimony in an adoption release proceeding is of no help, requires remand and an evidentiary record from the probate court to help in assessing whether an infant’s mother, prior to signing a child adoption release, was told she had 20 days to change her mind; if after such hearing the probate court ñnds that he is in doubt as to whether or not the releasing parent relied on advice (even though erroneous) that she had 20 days within which to change her mind, then the probate court should grant a rehearing of the order terminating her rights in the child and decide this issue on its merits.
Appeal from Wayne, Harvey Moes, J.
Submitted February 11, 1977, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 31038.)
Decided June 8, 1977.
Petition in Probate Court by a minor mother of a child and her guardian ad litem to set aside a child adoption release. Petition denied. Petitioners appeal.
Affirmed.
Louis Demás, for petitioner.
Regina F. Shapiro, for Lutheran Children’s Friend Society of Michigan.
Before: M. J. Kelly, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and R. M. Maher, JJ.

Opinion:
R. M. Maher, J.
Judge Kelly's dissent adequately treats the issue that is properly before this Court. The probate court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the release under MCLA 710.29(9); MSA 27.3178(555.29X9), and did not abuse the discretion granted it under MCLA 710.64(1); MSA 27.3178(555.64)(1).
It is inappropriate to remand this matter to investigate the "critical issue" of whether this infant's mother was told, prior to executing the release, that she had 20 days to change her mind. Had this issue been raised before the probate court, a swift resolution would have followed. Instead, the allegation that the mother was under a misapprehension of the consequences of her release did not surface until oral arguments before this Court. The legislative determination that finality in these matters is beneficial to the well-being of the children involved coincides with the judicial policy of not considering matters first raised on appeal.
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, J., concurred.