IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF DMKK

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan
ORDER
IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF DMKK
Docket No. 381129
LC No. 25-909038-GM
Christopher M. Murray
Presiding Judge
Mark T. Boonstra
Colleen A. O’Brien
Judges
The application for leave to pursue a delayed appeal is DENIED on the basis that appellant
unreasonably delayed in seeking appellate review. See MCR 7.205(A)(4) (“The court may consider the
length of and the reasons for delay in deciding whether to grant the delayed application.”). Given that
appellant was present (via Zoom) at the December 18, 2025 hearing, was represented by counsel, and does
not dispute that she was served with a copy of the probate court’s disputed December 18, 2025 order, we
cannot credit her representation that the delay at bar was largely attributable to her first learning of the
trial court’s ruling months later, at a February 17, 2026 hearing. And given that this is a probate matter
affecting the care and custody of an elementary-school-aged child, we are unwilling to excuse appellant’s
unexplained delay in requesting a delayed appeal. See Jewell v Grand Traverse Co Probate Judge, 51
Mich App 134, 142; 214 NW2d 717 (1974) (observing that, in proceedings affecting the custody of minor
children, granting a delayed appeal may be properly viewed as contrary to “the strong public policy that
child custody matters be resolved with all due speed”). See also Deschaine v St Germain, 256 Mich App
665, 671 n 9; 671 NW2d 79 (2003) (“Because the Child Custody Act of 1970 . . . and the guardianship
statutes have the same purpose of promoting the best interests of children, the two statutes may be
interpreted consistent with each other, or in pari materia.”) (citations omitted).
_______________________________
Presiding Judge
September 30, 2026

-- 1 of 1 --