IN RE DEANGELO DARRYL ROBINSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of
ROBINSON, Minor.
DEANGELO
DARRYL
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 4, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No.
219547
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-357824
LARRY ROBINSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHIRLEY IVY CRAIG,
Respondent.
In the Matter of
ROBINSON, Minor.
DEANGELO
DARRYL
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
SHIRLEY IVY CRAIG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
No. 219548
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-357824
LARRY ROBINSON,
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In Docket No. 219547, respondent-appellant Robinson appeals as of right from the family
court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g)
and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). In Docket No. 219548, respondent
appellant Craig appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent Robinson argues that he was denied due process because personal service was not
attempted for the adjourned termination hearing. However, repetitive personal service is unnecessary
after an initial summons for a termination hearing has been properly served and the proceedings are
subsequently adjourned to a future date. MCR 5.920(F); In re Atkins, 237 Mich App 249, 251; 602
NW2d 594 (1999); In re Andeson, 155 Mich App 615, 618-619; 400 NW2d 330 (1986).
Respondent Robinson also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the
reports of a caseworker and psychiatrist who were not present at trial. However, because respondent
did not object to this evidence in the trial court and has not demonstrated that the admission of the
evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice, appellate relief is precluded. In re Snyder, 223 Mich App
85, 92; 566 NW2d 18 (1997).
Respondent Craig argues that petitioner failed to establish that § 19b(3)(g) was established by
clear and convincing evidence. However, respondent Craig’s parental rights were terminated under
§§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (j), in addition to § 19b(3)(g). Because only one statutory ground is necessary to
terminate parental rights and because respondent Craig does not challenge the other statutory grounds
relied upon by the trial court as a basis for terminating parental rights, she is not entitled to appellate
relief. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991); Roberts & Son Contracting,
Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987).
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
