Bloise, C. v. Dadey, C.

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 10:20 AM In re CD, Minor.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

NUMBER 13-25-00400-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE CYNTHIA ARTEAGA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron1 By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Cynthia Arteaga contends that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) denying relator “the opportunity to conduct discovery upon the real parties in interest’s ten newly asserted affirmative defenses”; (2) denying relator’s motion for a level three scheduling order and denying her motion to compel discovery because “a continuance of the trial date re-set all of the deadlines included in 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). a prior scheduling order”; and (3) failing to enforce a Rule 11 Agreement regarding discovery. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11. “Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.” In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); see In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Mandamus is intended for use in circumstances “involving manifest and urgent necessity” and is not used “for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.” Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC, 619 S.W.3d 628, 641 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840). “An appeal is inadequate ‘when parties are in danger of permanently losing substantial rights,’ which occurs when ‘the appellate court would not be able to cure the error, when the party’s ability to present a viable claim or defense is vitiated, or when the error cannot be made part of the appellate record.’” Id. (quoting In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 211 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex., Inc., 619 S.W.3d at 641. The 2 underlying case has been pending since 2018, has been set for trial on at least seven previous occasions, and has been the subject of two separate original proceedings pertaining to these same and related issues. See In re Arteaga, No. 13-25-00026-CV, 2025 WL 291269, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 24, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Arteaga, No. 13-24-00578-CV, 2024 WL 4906774, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 27, 2024, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). The record before the Court fails to show that the trial court abused its discretion or that it has denied or compromised relator’s “ability to present a viable claim or defense—or reasonable opportunity to develop the merits of the case.” In re Euless Pizza, LP, 702 S.W.3d 543, 548 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam) (cleaned up); see Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 843. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. JENNY CRON Justice Delivered and filed on the 11th day of August, 2025. 3

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 25-JUN-2025 08:09 AM Dkt. 56 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I MEILING K. AKUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDY STEHL and JIM FALK MOTORS OF MAUI, Defendants-Appellees APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAILUKU DIVISION (CASE NO. 2DRC-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant Meiling K. Akuna (Akuna) appeals from the District Court of the Second Circuit's (district court)1 May 3, 2023 Judgment, entered in favor of 1 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Defendants-Appellees Andy Stehl (Stehl) and Jim Falk Motors of Maui (Falk Motors) (collectively, the Defendants). Akuna raises three issues on appeal,2 contending that the district court: (1) "erred in giving nominal concern in [Akuna's] case"; (2) "erred on the manner in which the trials were conducted"; and (3) "applied the wrong legal standard in finding [Akuna's] case unmerited." 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 Akuna's appeal as follows. In August 2021, Akuna filed the operative Amended Complaint, alleging that the Defendants committed fraud by selling her a "truck [that] was previously damaged in a rollover accident" that had been represented as being "a new truck." The case proceeded to a bench trial. After Akuna rested her case, the Defendants moved for a directed verdict. The district court ruled as follows, Ms. Akuna, the [c]ourt in this case has listened to the testimony of the witnesses that you've called to support your claim. 2 We note that Akuna's opening brief does not, among other things, include a statement of points of error or arguments on appeal as required by Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28. We will nevertheless address Akuna's contentions of error to the extent they are discernible. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Wright, Nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, & CAAP-20- 0000364, 2023 WL 4104953, at *2 (Haw. App. June 21, 2023) (SDO) ("[W]e interpret pleadings prepared by self-represented litigants liberally and attempt to afford them appellate review even though they fail to comply with court rules.") (citation omitted). 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Ah, the [c]ourt has also had the opportunity to review the exhibits which were received in evidence. You know, unfortunately the [c]ourt [cannot] see or find any evidence of your claim that the vehicle that was sold to you on April 4th, 2013 was, in fact, a used vehicle as opposed to a new vehicle. Ah, because of that, your claim fails and you have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence the claim set forth in your complaint. So unfortunately, at this time the [c]ourt has no alternative but to rule in favor of the [D]efendant[s]. The [c]ourt is granting the defense's motion for directed verdict. Judgment is entered in favor of the [D]efendants and against [Akuna]. (Emphasis added.) A motion for a directed verdict in a district court trial shall be considered as a motion to dismiss under District Court Rules of Civil Procedure (DCRCP) Rule 41(b).3 Cf. Ontai v. Straub Clinic & Hosp. Inc., 66 Haw. 237, 252, 659 P.2d 734, 745 (1983) ("A motion for a directed verdict [under Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 50(a)4] in a nonjury case will be 3 DCRCP Rule 41(b) states, in relevant part, After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, without waiving the defendant's right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the

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