IN RE IRVINE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J. A. I. and E. T. I., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 232683
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-627653-NA
DAVID LEE IRVINE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELINA CORRELL,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Neff and B. B. MacKenzie*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the orders terminating his parental rights to
the minor children. We affirm.
Respondent-appellant contends that the trial court clearly erred in finding sufficient
evidence of statutory grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h). We disagree. The
trial court found that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3)
has been met by clear and convincing evidence. Although the trial court’s rulings1 were brief,
there is no question that he properly ruled that termination is justified because of respondent’s
incarceration, his failure to provide proper care of the children, and the lack of any reasonable
1
The trial court addressed the issues twice, first at the jurisdiction/termination proceeding and
then at the best interests proceeding.
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
likelihood that he will be able to do so within any reasonable time. In re Perry, 193 Mich App
648, 650; 484 NW2d 768 (1992).
This Court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.
MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller,
433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Under this standard, the trial court’s decision “must
strike [the reviewing court] as more than just maybe or probably wrong.” Trejo, supra, p 341
(quoting In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999)). A finding is clearly
erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is
left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Miller, supra, p 337. This
Court gives due regard to the trial court’s unique ability to assess the witnesses’ credibility. Id.
Applying these standards of review to the present record, we find no error.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
-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.
