IN RE ANDY SRIVER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.S., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238770
Ionia Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000242-NA
DAVID SRIVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BECKY SRIVER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of A.S., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238798
Ionia Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000242-NA
BECKY SRIVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DAVID SRIVER,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from the trial court order terminating their parental rights
to their minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent father failed to preserve his claim that petitioner violated the ADA and failed
to establish that petitioner provided services that were not reasonable, as required under MCL
712A.18f of the Michigan Juvenile Code.
Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, the trial court did not clearly err when it
ordered petitioner at the permanency planning hearing to file a petition to terminate respondentappellant mother’s parental rights. MCR 5.973(C)(4). Because respondent-appellant mother
argues that the trial court clearly erred in terminating her parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)
and (c)(ii), but does not challenge the termination of her parental rights under the two remaining
statutory grounds, any error by the court in terminating her parental rights under either §§
19b(3)(c)(i) or (c)(ii) would be harmless. In re Powers, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472
(2000).
Moreover, the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence for
both respondents, and the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating either respondents’
parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
