IN RE SISLER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of K.S., R.S., and C.E., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238221
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-002970-NA
REBECCA BURBANK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROBERT SISLER, SR., and DAVID ESPINOSA,
Respondents.
In the Matter of K.S., R.S., and C.E., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238223
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-002970-NA
ROBERT SISLER, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
REBECCA BURBANK and DAVID ESPINOSA,
Respondents.
-1-
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents-appellants appeal as of right from an order terminating their parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Both respondents-appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding clear and
convincing evidence of statutory grounds to terminate their parental rights. In order to terminate
parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination
in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich
App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993). This Court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact under
the clearly erroneous standard. 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). Here, the trial court did not
err in finding sufficient evidence to terminate respondents-appellants’ parental rights. Petitioner
established that both failed to resolve the substance abuse and lifestyle instability issues that
prevented them from properly caring for the minor children.
Respondent-appellant Burbank also argues that the trial court erred in denying her
counsel’s motion for adjournment of the January 26, 2001, hearing. We review a trial court’s
decision to deny an adjournment for an abuse of discretion. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28;
501 NW2d 182 (1993). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion where Burbank’s
counsel failed to show good cause for the adjournment. MCR 5.923(G)(2). Burbank’s
unwillingness to come to court where she might be arrested on an outstanding warrant was not
good cause to adjourn.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
