Shirley Jean Cupples Blankenship v. Charles Gary Blankenship, Sr. and Charles Gary Blankenship, II v. Shirley Jean Cupples Blankenship

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 10:20 AM In re CD, Minor. No. 371098 Crawford Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 21-004622-NA Before: MARIANI, P.J., and MALDONADO and YOUNG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-mother appeals by right the order terminating her parental rights to the minor child, CD, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to parent’s home). In a scant, two-paragraph argument on appeal, respondent-mother asserts only that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of a separate personal protection order (PPO) case between herself and CD’s father, who was not a respondent in this matter, and that there was no need to terminate her parental rights because she was jailed for violating the PPO. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case was commenced approximately a month after respondent-mother’s home was raided by a police drug taskforce following three controlled purchases of prescription drugs from respondent-mother, during which the police found and confiscated a dangerous butane-based THC extraction lab from her garage. The minor child, CD, was placed in the care of his father in an ex parte custody order entered in a custody case between the father and respondent-mother. The father was simultaneously granted a PPO against respondent-mother. The same judge presided over this case, the custody case, and the PPO proceedings.1 The trial court took judicial notice of the PPO proceedings in a contempt hearing in this case without objection by respondent-mother’s 1 The trial court also issued another PPO against respondent-mother while this case was pending. -1- attorney. Respondent-mother also was charged criminally, and a different judge presided over her criminal cases. Almost three years after the raid and more than two years after the order of adjudication, the trial court issued a lengthy written opinion that summarized the voluminous testimony in this case. The trial court found that respondent-mother’s noncompliance with petitioner, continued impulsivity and history of defiance, and lack of benefit from services showed that CD would likely be harmed if returned to her care. The trial court then found that respondent-mother’s dishonesty, lack of insight, lack of accountability, and questionable judgment in recently marrying a felon showed that termination was in CD’s best interests. The trial court noted that it had no assurance that CD would be kept safe through custody orders in the parallel custody proceeding because respondent-mother’s conduct throughout this case and as reflected in the PPO case showed that she could not be trusted to follow any such orders. II. PRESERVATION OF ISSUES A respondent must object in the trial court to the trial court’s use of evidence. In re VanDalen, 293 Mich App 120, 135; 809 NW2d 412 (2011). Respondent-mother expressly declined to do so when the trial court directly asked if she had any objection to the trial court taking judicial notice of the PPO matters at a contempt hearing in this case. Waiver does not require any particular language, but it “must be explicit, voluntary, and made in good faith.” In re MJC Minor, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 365616); slip op at 3. A party waives an issue by expressly declining a trial court’s invitation to object to a matter. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 214-215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000); People v McDonald, 293 Mich App 292, 295; 811 NW2d 507 (2011). If an issue is waived, there is no right to appeal. People v Flores, 346 Mich App 602, 608; 13 NW3d 668 (2023). However, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution,” we will treat this issue “as merely forfeited rather than affirmatively waived.” See Flores, 346 Mich App at 608-609. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW An unpreserved error in a termination-of-parental-rights case is reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. In re Ferranti, 504 Mich 1, 29 & n 13; 934 NW2d 610 (2019). Under that standard, a clear or obvious error must have occurred, the error must have affected the outcome of the

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 63 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MERVINA KAUKINI MAMO CASH-KAEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUY K. BARRETT; RONETTE BARRETT, Defendants-Appellants, DUSTIN K. BARRETT; SHEENA ANN BARRETT; RICHARD BARRETT; LEZLEY K. BARRETT aka LEZLEY BRADBURY, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; and DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT WAI‘ANAE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.) Defendants-Appellants Guy K. Barrett and Ronette Barrett (collectively, the Barretts) appeal from the District Court of the First Circuit's (district court)1 May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. They raise three points of error, contending that the district court abused its discretion when: 1 The Honorable Darolyn H. Lendio entered the Judgment for Possession. The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided over the April 26, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff-Appellee Mervina Kaukini Mamo Cash-Kaeo's (Cash- Kaeo) motion for summary judgment (MSJ).  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER (1) "it defaulted [the Barretts] for [their] non[-]appearance [at the MSJ hearing] where the facts show [the Barretts had] defended themselves in this action by retaining counsel" who "made eight court appearances at hearings in defense of [the Barretts]"; (2) "it applied the extreme sanctions methodology" by entering default judgment against the Barretts "for the failure of their counsel to appear at the hearing on [Cash- Kaeo's] [MSJ]"; and (3) "it allowed the hearing on [Cash-Kaeo's] [MSJ] to proceed without first addressing [counsel's] non[- ]appearance at this hearing." Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the Barretts' appeal as follows. The Barretts contend that the district court entered default judgment against them pursuant to District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 55. The record reflects, however, that the district court entered the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession against the Barretts because Cash-Kaeo demonstrated she was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law under DCRCP Rule 56. Pursuant to DCRCP Rule 56(c), a motion for summary judgment may be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Kanahele v. State, 154 Hawaiʻi 190, 201, 549 P.3d 275, 286 (2024). The Barretts point to no evidence in the record indicating a genuine issue of material fact disputing that Cash- Kaeo is the sole surviving lessee of the subject property, and that Cash-Kaeo is therefore entitled to judgment of possession against the Barretts as a matter of law. The Barretts also cite no authority indicating the district court was required to address their counsel's non-appearance at the MSJ hearing before it could grant the MSJ. Even if the district court was required to do so, the Barretts fail to identify any legal theory or issue of fact that could have or would have been presented in opposition to the MSJ to defeat the motion. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the MSJ, and affirm the May 17, 2022 Judgment for Possession. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 20, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Barry L. Sooalo, for Defendants-Appellants. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge Jay T. Suemori, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-25-00031-CV ___________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF E.T., A.T., AND E.T., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 231st District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 231-745808-24 Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Wallach, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach  MEMORANDUM OPINION Father appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor children on the grounds that Father had “executed before or after the suit [wa]s filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by Chapter 161” of the Texas Family Code and that termination was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(K), (b)(2). We affirm. Father’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply in cases terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Further, Father’s counsel (1) provided Father with a copy of the Anders brief, (2) informed Father of his right to file a pro se response, and (3) advised Father of his right to access the appellate record and provided to him a form motion for effectuating that purpose. 1 1 Father’s counsel did not inform Father of his pro se right to seek discretionary review of our opinion should we declare his appeal frivolous, a function that an appointed lawyer who files an Anders brief must fulfill in a criminal appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). An appointed 2 Father did not file a response, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief. When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL 1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). After careful review, we agree with Father’s counsel that there are no arguable grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Father’s parental rights. Father’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any proceedings in the Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016; In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016) (order). /s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallach Justice Delivered: June 19, 2025 appellate attorney in a termination appeal has no such obligation, however, because his representation does not end in our court. See In re C.W., No. 02-21-00340-CV, 2022 WL 1155908, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 19, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 3

No. 549 June 18, 2025 363 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, deceased. Barbi M. DOLL, Appellant, v. Donald Lee TRESSLER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Wilbert H. Tressler, Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court 21PB05510; A180067 Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Submitted May 20, 2025. Jennifer J. Martin, Kevin O’Connell, and Law Offices of O’Connell Hval & Martin filed the briefs for appellant. Heather Cavanaugh, Julie R. Vacura, and Larkins Vacura Kayser, LLP, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. 364 Doll v. Tressler ORTEGA, P. J. Petitioner Barbi Doll seeks reversal of an opinion and order concluding that decedent Wilbert Tressler lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a will in 2020, which made her the primary beneficiary of his estate and which also concluded that the will was the result of undue influence by petitioner. She seeks reversal of that opinion and order, which invalidated the 2020 will, and the findings and conclusions supporting it. We affirm. Petitioner has not asked this court to try the cause anew on the record under ORAP 5.40(8), and this is not an “exceptional case” warranting such review. ORAP 5.40(8)(c). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court’s findings of historical fact that are supported by any evidence in the record and review the court’s dispositional conclusions for errors of law. See Williamson v. Zielinski, 326 Or App 648, 649, 532 P3d 1257 (2023). The trial court’s findings of historical fact are sup- ported by evidence in the record and are bolstered by its credibility findings. Those findings provide ample legal sup- port for its dispositional conclusions. We therefore conclude that petitioner has failed to show any basis for reversal of the opinion and order. Affirmed.

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS IA, UNPUBLISHED August 13, 2025 Petitioner-Appellee, 8:35 AM v No. 372603 Muskegon Circuit Court RM, LC No. 2024-000894-PP Respondent-Appellant. Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and BOONSTRA and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner brought the present action for the issuance of a personal protection order (PPO), via an ex parte petition, alleging that respondent, the father of her two minor children, engaged in multiple instances of stalking and harassment. In response, the trial court entered an ex parte PPO. Respondent then filed a motion to terminate the PPO, arguing that the petition should not have been granted because it did not contain allegations showing any likelihood of immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage as required by MCL 600.2950(12). The court held an extensive evidentiary hearing regarding the petition, after which it issued an opinion and order denying respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO, finding that petitioner had reasonable cause to believe that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking and that evidence showed that respondent engaged in willful conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of petitioner. We affirm. I. FACTS At the time of filing of the petition in this matter, the parties had joint custody of their two minor children, ages 11 and 9, who attended school in Norton Shores, in Muskegon County. Respondent resided in Norton Shores. Petitioner had recently moved to Idlewild, just east of Baldwin, in Lake County. Petitioner filed her ex parte petition for issuance of a PPO on February 26, 2024, making various accusations of stalking and harassment by respondent, which took place between January 2023 and February 2024. -1-  The court issued an ex parte PPO that same day, February 26, 2024, which prohibited respondent from doing any of the following: (1) entering onto the property at the address where petitioner lived; (2) assaulting, attacking, beating, molesting, or wounding petitioner; (3) stalking as defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i, with the sole no-contact exception being that he could email using the “parent talking app,” only, about parenting time exchanges and emergencies, only; (4) threatening to kill or physically injure petitioner; (5) interfering with petitioner at her place of employment or education or engaging in conduct that impairs her employment or education relationship or environment; (6) intentionally causing petitioner mental distress or exerting control over petitioner via various actions involving any animal in which petitioner has an ownership interest; (7) purchasing or possessing a firearm; (8) using “location devices while [the] children are at petitioner’s for parenting time.” Respondent then filed a motion to terminate the PPO and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled by the court. At the hearing, which occurred over three sessions conducted in March, April, and July 2024, the court heard testimony from both parties, as well as petitioner’s partner of the last seven years and petitioner’s father. Following the completion of testimony on the third day, the parties gave closing statements and the court took the matter under advisement. In September 2024, the court issued an order denying respondent’s motion to terminate the PPO, finding that petitioner had reasonable cause to believe that respondent’s conduct constituted stalking and that evidence showed that respondent engaged in willful conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of petitioner. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The granting of a PPO is “within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” SP v BEK, 339 Mich App 171, 176; 981 NW2d 500 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also Hayford v Hayford, 279 Mich App 324, 325; 769 NW2d 324 (2008) (“We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court’s determination whether to issue a PPO because it is an injunctive order”). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision resulted in an outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes.” SP, 339 Mich App at 176 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review