IN RE MONROE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ZAVIER MONROE and GRANT
MONROE, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
April 29, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279534
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-005267-NA
DAVID BRYAN MONROE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor children. We remand for further proceedings.
The trial court terminated respondent’s parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing.
A court may terminate parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing if the preponderance of
evidence adduced at trial establishes grounds for the assumption of jurisdiction under MCL
712A.2(b) and the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing legally admissible evidence
that one or more facts alleged in the petition are true and establish grounds for termination under
MCL 712A.19b(3). MCR 3.977(E). Once a statutory basis for termination is established, the
court must order termination of parental rights unless the evidence on the whole record clearly
shows that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
The trial court is required to make “findings of fact and conclusions of law” and place
them on the record or in writing. MCR 3.977(H)(1). “Brief, definite, and pertinent findings and
conclusions on contested matters are sufficient.” Id. Further, a court is required to identify the
statutory basis for an order terminating parental rights. MCR 3.977(H)(3). The purpose of this
requirement is to facilitate appellate review. See, generally, People v Johnson (On Rehearing),
208 Mich App 137, 141; 526 NW2d 617 (1994). Thus, we review the adequacy of the trial
court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine whether the court was aware of the
issues in the case and correctly applied the law, and to determine whether appellate review would
be facilitated by requiring further explanation. Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce
Ltd, 209 Mich App 165, 176; 530 NW2d 772 (1995).
-1-
Following the close of arguments at the dispositional hearing, the trial court granted
petitioner leave to amend the petition to allege additional statutory grounds for termination and
adjourned the case to allow respondent to determine if he wanted to present additional evidence
to address the new statutory grounds. When the hearing resumed several months later, the court
stated that its notes reflected that it had already “made clear and convincing findings with regard
to the basis for termination,” and it proceeded with the best interests stage of the proceedings.
As respondent argues, and petitioner agrees, the record discloses that contrary to the trial
court’s statement, it failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding a
statutory basis for termination. Accordingly, while retaining jurisdiction, we remand this case to
the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by MCR 3.977(H). The
trial court shall submit its findings of fact and conclusions of law to this Court within 28 days of
the issuance of this opinion.
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
