STATE OF MICHIGAN
27TH CIRCUIT COURT - FAMILY DIVISION
In the Matter of,
ALYSSA AND AMBER KEAST File No. 06-505-AF and
06-506-AF
__________________________/
TRANSCRIPT
SECTION 45 HEARING - VOLUME I
BEFORE THE HONORABLE TERRENCE R. THOMAS, FAMILY COURT JUDGE
White Cloud, Michigan - Wednesday, May 23, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Attorney for the minor MS. CHRISTINE FRISBIE, P46672
Children: 1206 East James Street
White Cloud, Michigan 49349
231) 689-0600
Attorney for Tim & Barbara MS. SHON A. COOK P51452
Atwood: 120 West Apple Avenue
Muskegon, Michigan 49443
(231) 726-4857
Attorney for Nicole Coppess: MR. SCOTT SHERLUND; P54861
80 Ottawa Avenue; NW, Suite 301
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
(616) 774-3020
Attorneys for the State: MS.MARIBETH ANNE DICKERSON, 68975
MR. JOEL D. MCGORMLEY, P60211
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-7700
RECORDER BY: Marylin J. Hall CER 6579
CERTIFIED ELECTRONIC RECORDER
(213) 689-7275
1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WITNESSES:
TIM TIM ATWOOD
Direct Examination by Ms. Cook
Cross-Examination by Ms. Dickerson
Cross-Examination by Mr. Sherlund
Re-Direct Examination by Ms. Cook
EXHIBITS:
2.
White Cloud, Michigan
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - beginning at 2:32 p.m.
THE COURT: The Court has conducted a status
conference in chambers. Essentially who was present, Scott
Sherlund, Shon Cook, Meribeth Anne Dickerson, Joel McGormley,
William Johnson, Curt Slatina, and Christine Frisbie. Have I
missed anybody? The discussion had to do with the Court's
request and understanding of the proceedings that are going to
take place from this point on. It did not really deal with the
45 hearing, which we're here today about. As a matter of fact I
don't remember any discussions concerning that. The Court talked
about possible settlements, and also raised essentially what it
considered to be some of the issues and the timelines, and the
expenses that this case could involve down the line. During that
Ms. Cook objected to the presence of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson did
excuse himself from the room. One of the legal issues that did
come up had to do with the Court's reading o.f MCL 710. 43, as to
whether the consent to the petition of adoption also required in
addition to the agency, in this case the Atwood proceeding, the
MCI Director's consent and whether that also required the Court's
consent as well or whether it was optional. But generally the
Court essentially indicated its position in the matter, which is
really a matter of public record in this case that it thought
public policy of the State dictated that the family got first
shot at adoption. Not to indicate that either of the parties
3.