IN RE DARIUS HARTFIELD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 17, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 241740
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-164201-NA
THOMAS WHEELER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOYCE HARTFIELD,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Thomas Wheeler appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child. Joyce Hartfield, the mother, voluntarily relinquished her rights, and is not a
party to this appeal.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears the
burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350;
617 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that
persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is
mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id.,
355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., 356.
The petition alleged that respondent failed to provide proper care and custody. MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). There is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of
respondent’s parental rights. Respondent clearly had been unable to provide proper care and
custody while he was incarcerated. He was uncertain when he would be released, he did not
have employment, and he did not have satisfactory living arrangements for the child. Where the
child had been in foster care or juvenile detention for a significant amount of time, the court
-1-
properly found that the child needed proper care and custody long before respondent would be
able to provide it.
The court did not err in denying respondent’s oral motion for an adjournment. An
adjournment in a child protective proceeding may only be granted for good cause. MCL
712A.17(1). The motion could not be granted where it was not filed in writing before the
hearing, and the best interests of the child were met by a speedy resolution of the case and not by
a delay. MCL 712A.17(1)(a) and (b). Moreover, respondent fails to show any resulting
prejudice, in that he fails to reference any favorable information that would have been presented
to the court had the court granted the motion for an adjournment. To the extent that respondent
also argues ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim is without merit where there is no
showing of prejudice or deficient performance. People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590, 599-600; 623
NW2d 884 (2001).
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/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.
