IN RE CARLOS EDWARD NORMAN JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of C.E.N., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235143
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-375143
CARLOS EDWARD NORMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARLISSA BURRELL,
Respondent.
In the Matter of C.E.N., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235300
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-375143
MARLISSA ROBERTA BURRELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARLOS EDWARD NORMAN,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right the order terminating their
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (g), (i), (j), and
(k)(i). We affirm.
With regard to respondent Norman, the trial court did not err in finding clear and
convincing evidence to support termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), and (j). In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App
47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1993); MCR 5.974(I). The evidence established that Norman deserted
the child for more than ninety days by failing to maintain contact with petitioner regarding
preservation of his parental rights. The evidence also established that Norman did not enable
himself to provide care for the child, or to address his special needs. With regard to respondent
Burrell, the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence to support termination
under subsections 19b(b)(i), (g), (i), and (j). The evidence established that Burrell previously
lost parental rights to her children because she failed to address the substance abuse that
interfered with her ability to care for them. Additionally, the evidence showed that Burrell had
not resolved her substance abuse problem.
The trial court clearly erred in citing subsection 19b(k)(i) as grounds to terminate either
respondent’s parental rights. However, this error is harmless because the trial court is required
only to find grounds for termination under one statutory provision. In re Sours, 459 Mich 624,
632; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Burrell also argues that termination was not in the minor child’s best interests. When the
petitioner establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a statutory basis or bases for
termination exists, the court must order termination of parental rights unless it finds from
evidence on the record that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5),
Trejo, supra at 353. Here, the trial court did not clearly err in declining to find that termination
was not in the child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
