¶1(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the result reached by the majority, but do not believe that, on the facts of this case, we are required to or should resolve the conflict between the Adrianson/Dupras (In re Dupras, 140 Mich App 171; 363 NW2d 26 [1984]; In re Adrianson, 105 Mich App 300; 306 NW2d 487 [1981]) and Ferris (In re Ferris, 151 Mich App 736; *209391 NW2d 468 [1986]) lines of reasoning on the issue whether errors during the adjudicative stage of a probate court proceeding to terminate parental rights may be collaterally attacked. Moreover, if I were compelled to address the issue, I would adopt the Ferris line of reasoning and reach the opposite result.
188 Mich. App. 189
468 N.W.2d 912
In Re Waite
Decided April 1, 1991
Michigan Court of Appeals · decided 1991-04-01
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1991-04-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably State v. Payne (2007), Pratts v. Hurley (2004)
3 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →