in Re Erber Guardianships, 338759

In May 2014 the probate court appointed Judy Russell (paternal grandmother) as full guardian of Dana Erber’s three children while Erber was incarcerated and the mother hospitalized.
Erber filed multiple petitions to terminate the guardianships (April 2015 denied after hearing; December 2015 dismissed for failure to amend; May 4, 2017 petition set for May 25, 2017).
Erber also sought modification of parenting time (filed April 25, 2016); evidentiary hearings occurred March 10, 2017 and May 22, 2017, with testimony about therapeutic reintroduction of Erber to the children.
On May 22, 2017 the probate court issued an order addressing the parenting-time motion (took it under advisement) and stating orally that it would not terminate the guardianships at that time and adjourned the termination petitions from May 25 to September 22, 2017.
Erber appealed the May 22, 2017 order to the Court of Appeals, arguing the probate court erred in refusing to terminate the guardianships.

Issue	Erber's Argument	Guardian/Children's Argument	Held
Whether the May 22, 2017 order was a final, appealable order	The order continued the guardianships and thus denied termination — appealable as of right	The order was not final because the court expressly took issues under advisement and set a future hearing on termination	Not final; no appeal as of right (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
Whether an oral statement that “the guardianships are continued” constituted a final adjudication	That statement is a final ruling that keeps children out of his custody	Context shows it preserved status quo pending further proceedings, not a final adjudication	Statement reflected maintenance of status quo; not a final ruling on termination
Whether the Court of Appeals should treat the filing as an application for leave to appeal	The Court should accept and decide the merits despite lack of finality	Case law and rules require an aggrieved party and a final order or leave to appeal; petitioner lacks injury from this order	Denied; Court declines to treat the appeal as an application for leave to appeal because petitioner was not aggrieved by the May 22 order

In re Werney Estate, 112 Mich. App. 601 (1982) (test of finality is whether order affects with finality the parties’ rights in the subject matter)
Waatti & Sons Elec Co v. Dehko, 230 Mich. App. 582 (1998) (court may, in its discretion, treat an appeal as an application for leave to appeal)
Federated Ins Co v. Oakland Co Rd Comm, 475 Mich. 286 (2006) (to have appellate standing a litigant must be an "aggrieved party" who suffered a concrete, particularized injury from the court’s action)