IN RE AXZALIA MONET JERNAGIN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of AXZALIA MONET JERNAGIN,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288098
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-732656-NA
CARL FULBRIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Meter and Servitto, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (h). We affirm. This appeal has been decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent argues that the trial court improperly found jurisdiction over him where the
allegations of the petition that related to him were not established by a preponderance of the
evidence. However, respondent did not challenge the finding of jurisdiction at any of the review
hearings, as allowed by MCL 712A.21, or in a direct appeal. “Matters affecting the court’s
exercise of its jurisdiction may be challenged only on direct appeal of the jurisdictional decision,
not by collateral attack in a subsequent appeal of an order terminating parental rights.” In re
Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 679-680; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). Further, we note that the trial
court properly asserted jurisdiction over the child based on the plea of her mother. Once
jurisdiction was established, MCR 3.973(A) allowed the trial court to take measures against any
adult, including respondent. In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 202-203; 646 NW2d 506 (2002).
Next, the trial court properly found that MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were established
by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d
520 (1999); In re Fried, 266 Mich App 535, 541; 702 NW2d 192 (2005). Any error in finding
other sections established is harmless where only one statutory ground for termination need be
established. MCL 712A.19b(3). The conditions leading to adjudication that applied to
respondent were his failure to protect the minor child, his inability to care for her, his
schizophrenia and not taking medication for that illness, his failure to pay any child support for
the child although ordered to do so, and his admission that he would test positive for marijuana.
-1-
At the time of the termination trial, respondent was still unable to provide proper care and
custody for the child. He had not completed a drug treatment program, he had not shown an
ability to comply with psychiatric treatment, and he was incarcerated with an earliest release date
of 2013 for breaking into his mother’s house and assaulting her. The conditions of adjudication
continued to exist where respondent was not able to care for the child and would not be able to
rectify the conditions leading to adjudication or provide proper care and custody within a
reasonable time.
Finally, the trial court did not err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). In reaching its best interests
decision, the trial court noted respondent’s failure to comply with the parent-agency agreement,
his mental health issues, his substance abuse issues, his violent behavior, and his incarceration
until at least 2013. Respondent and the child did not share a bond, and she reacted in apparent
fear of him at visitation.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
