Michigan Court of Appeals 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UNPUBLISHED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