IN RE DEERING/GRAFTON/FOREMAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DEJA RITA DEERING, JASMINE
CIERA GRAFTON, and NIKKO CARTENUS
FOREMAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 26, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 223650
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-322559
RICKO LEMONG FOREMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MONICA JOY GRAFTON and JUWAN
KWUMAR DEERING,
Respondents.
In the Matter of DEJA RITA DEERING, JASMINE
CIERA GRAFTON, and NIKKO CARTENUS
FOREMAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 224074
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-322559
JUWAN KWUMAR DEERING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
MONICA JOY GRAFTON and RICKO LEMONG
FOREMAN,
Respondents.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Cavanagh and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents Ricko Foreman and Juwan Deering appeal as of right from a family court
order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g)
and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (j).1 We affirm.
We review a family court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If the court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence one or more statutory grounds for
termination, it must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear evidence, on the whole
record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra at 351-354.
We agree with respondents that the court clearly erred when it found that grounds for
termination pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii) and (j)
were proven by clear and convincing evidence. However, the court did not clearly err in finding
that termination was warranted with respect to both respondents under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). Review of the record indicates that petitioner presented clear and
convincing evidence that both respondents failed to provide care or custody for their respective
children, and there was no likelihood that they would be able to provide the necessary care or
custody within a reasonable time. Although the court erred regarding the other grounds for
termination, only one statutory ground need be established to terminate respondents’ parental
rights. In re SD, 236 Mich App 240, 247; 599 NW2d 772 (1999). Furthermore, the court did not
clearly err when it found that termination was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
Respondent Foreman argues that the court erred by making inconsistent findings
regarding his completion of parenting classes. Although we agree that there was inconsistency in
the written findings of fact, whether respondent completed the classes was not a key
consideration in this case. Because the error did not affect the outcome, we conclude that it was
harmless. MCR 5.902(A) and 2.613(A); In re Hamlet, 225 Mich App 505, 518; 571 NW2d 750
(1997), overruled on other grounds 462 Mich 341 (2000).
1
The court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s mother, Monica Grafton. She has
not appealed the court’s decision.
-2-
Respondent Deering argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of
his attorney’s late arrival at the hearing. In this case, Deering has failed to demonstrate the
requisite prejudice to establish that the assistance of his counsel was ineffective. In re Rogers,
160 Mich App 500, 502; 409 NW2d 486 (1987); People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 507; 597
NW2d 864 (1999).
Affirmed. Petitioner's request for immediate relief under MCR 7.215(E) is denied.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-3-
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.