IN RE ASHLEY MARIE SANDERSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ASHLEY MARIE SANDERSON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 18, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219659
Ogemaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-010822-NA
ERROL SANDERSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DENISE HESS,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T.L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from a family court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We reject respondent-appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his
request for an adjournment so that he could obtain different counsel. A trial court’s ruling on a request
for an adjournment is discretionary and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Jackson, 199
Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). The burden of proof is on the party asserting an abuse of
discretion. Id. Respondent-appellant has failed to demonstrate good cause for an adjournment, or that
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request. Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 31;
553 NW2d 619 (1996).
We also reject respondent-appellant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. Effective assistance of counsel is presumed, and the respondent bears a heavy burden of
proving otherwise. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994); People v
Effinger, 212 Mich App 67, 69; 536 NW2d 809 (1995). To establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, respondent-appellant must show that counsel’s performance was below an objective standard
of reasonableness under prevailing norms and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. Here, respondent
appellant has not identified any injurious action or inaction by his attorney and, therefore, has failed to
establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that respondent-appellant failed to comply with the
parent/agency agreement, or in concluding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of his parental rights was clearly
not in the child's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith,
222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant's parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-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.
