IN RE CARDELL FREDERICK IRVING II MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CARDELL FREDERICK IRVING,
II, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 6, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227721
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-366872
CARDELL IRVING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARIE HURT IRVING,
Respondent.
In the Matter of CARDELL FREDERICK IRVING,
II, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227822
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-366872
MARIE HURT IRVING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARDELL IRVING
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Sawyer and F.L. Borchard*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the family court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I
Respondent Cardell Irving contends that the trial court failed to comply with MCR
5.971(B)(4), which requires the court to advise a respondent that a plea of admission can be used
to terminate parental rights. This issue is not preserved for appeal because respondent did not
move to withdraw his plea of admission in the family court and did not challenge the referee’s
order in the trial court. In re Zelzack, 180 Mich App 117, 126; 446 NW2d 588 (1989); MCR
5.991(B)(3). In any event, we find that the trial court’s statements adequately informed
respondent that his admissions could lead to termination of his parental rights if he failed to
comply with the trial court’s terms and conditions for the child’s return.
II
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433 Mich
331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Furthermore, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondents’ parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra at 356-357. Thus, the family court did not err in
terminating respondents’ parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Fred L. Borchard
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
