Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED March 10, 2011 In the Matter of L. A. M., Minor. No. 298535 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 09-030027-AF

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and STEPHENS and M.J. KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent father appeals as of right a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(f). We affirm. MCL 712A.2(b)(5) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(f) allow a court to exercise jurisdiction over a child and to terminate a parent's rights to the child where the child has a guardian and both of the following are shown: The parent, having the ability to support or assist in supporting the [child], has failed or neglected, without good cause, to provide regular and substantial support for the [child] for 2 years or more before the filing of the petition or, if a support order has been entered, has failed to substantially comply with the order for 2 years or more before the filing of the petition. The parent, having the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the [child], has regularly and substantially failed or neglected, without good cause, to do so for 2 years or more before the filing of the petition. [MCL 712A.2(b)(5)(A) and (B); MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) and (ii).1] The only significant difference between the statutes is that regarding the burden of proof. Jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, MCR 3.972(C)(1); MCR 3.977(E)(2), while the statutory ground for termination must be proven by clear and convincing

1

MCL 712A.19b(3)(f)(i) and (ii) insert the words "a period of" before referencing "2 years," but the statutory language is otherwise identical.

-1-

evidence, MCL 712A.19b(3); MCR 3.977(E)(3). The petitioner bears the burden of proof and must prove both subsections of the statutes. In re ALZ, 247 Mich App 264, 272; 636 NW2d 284 (2001); In re Hill, 221 Mich App 683, 691; 562 NW2d 254 (1997). A trial court's decision to exercise jurisdiction is reviewed for clear error in light of the court's findings of fact. In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 295; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). The court's finding that the statutory ground for termination has been proven by clear and convincing evidence is also reviewed for clear error. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCR 3.977(K). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, giving due regard to the trial court's special opportunity to observe the witnesses." In re BZ, 264 Mich App at 296-297. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that

Download IN RE LAM MINOR.pdf

Michigan Law