IN RE FORD MINORS

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of TARRELL ALFONZO FORD and LEGEND NICOLE FORD, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY UNPUBLISHED July 21, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v Nos. 206088;206190 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 92-299943 ALFONZO FORD and MONICA SLOSS, Respondents-Appellants. Before: Murphy, P.J., and Young, Jr. and Michael R. Smith*, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondents Alfonzo Ford and Monica Sloss appeal as of right from a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i). We affirm. The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Hamlet (After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 515; 571 NW2d 750 (1997). Further, respondents failed to show that termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights. Id. Respondent Ford also argues that the juvenile court erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the children. However, respondent’s argument “confuses the distinction between whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and whether the court properly exercised its discretion in applying that jurisdiction.” In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 438; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). Here, the juvenile court * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ clearly had jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings, and any error -2­ in the exercise of that jurisdiction can be challenged only on direct appeal; it may not be collaterally attacked. Id. at 444. Therefore, this issue is not properly before this Court. Affirmed. /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. /s/ Michael R. Smith -3­