IN RE ANDERSON/PIERCE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MICHAEL ANDERSON and
JASMINE PIERCE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 19, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219853
Genesee Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 94-098139-NA
MICHAEL PIERCE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
FELICINA ANDERSON,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Neff and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted from a family court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b), (c)(i), (g), (i), (j), (k)(iii), and (l); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b), (c)(i), (g), (i), (j), (k)(iii), and (l). We affirm.
Respondent argues that the trial record lacked clear and convincing evidence to support the
family court’s decision to terminate his parental rights. According to respondent, the trial court erred in
concluding that petitioner worked with respondent “to offer a multitude of services” to him.
Respondent’s cursory discussion of the issue, which is not directed at the elements of any of the
numerous statutory grounds for termination that the trial court relied on, is insufficient to warrant
appellate relief. See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part
on other grounds, In re Trejo, __ Mich __; 612 NW2d 407 (Docket No. 112528, issued 7/5/2000),
-1
slip op at 13 n 10. Moreover, based on our review of the record, we disagree with respondent that the
trial court clearly erred in finding that petitioner attempted to offer respondent a multitude of services.
With regard to respondent’s second claim of error, respondent did not establish any basis for
vacating the termination order based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq.
First, respondent did not raise the issue below, and so it is not preserved for our review. In re King,
186 Mich App 458, 465; 465 NW2d 1 (1990). Second, the record below contains no indication that
respondent ever requested a reasonable accommodation for his learning disability from petitioner. See
In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25-26; 610 NW2d 563 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
