IN RE ARNELL AVENT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ARNELL AVENT, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
May 7, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 289249
Cheboygan Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 07-004244-NA
FRANCIS AVENT and DANIELLEKAY
AVENT,
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Murray and Stephens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from a circuit court order terminating their parental rights
to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. This
appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Although respondents argue that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, their argument is
confined to § 19b(3)(g). Where a respondent does not challenge the trial court’s determination
regarding one or more of several statutory grounds, this Court may assume that the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that the unchallenged grounds were proven by clear and convincing
evidence. See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part
on other grounds In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Further, a
respondent’s failure to address an issue that must necessarily be reached to reverse the trial court
precludes appellate relief. City of Riverview v Sibley Limestone, 270 Mich App 627, 638; 716
NW2d 615 (2006). Thus, respondents’ failure to address the trial court’s decision with respect to
§§ 19b(3)(c)(ii), (g), and (j) precludes relief with respect to the existence of a statutory ground
for termination.
Nonetheless, having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly
err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(ii), (g), and (j) were each established by clear and convincing
evidence. MCR 3.977(G); In re Trejo, supra at 356. Petitioner provided respondents with
extensive services prior to this child’s removal from the home attendant to other then-pending
abuse and neglect cases. They continued to be offered services since this child’s removal from
-1-
the home but failed to make sufficient progress such that the child could be entrusted to their
care without supervision.
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondents’
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356357. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-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.
