IN RE CRYSTAL MICHELLE OELBERG MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CRYSTAL MICHELLE
OELBERG, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236137
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 91-021313-NA
CHRIS C. OELBERG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LISA DUPUIS,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), and (j). We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If the court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence one or more of the statutory
grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 351-354.
While we question the applicability of MCL 712A.19b(j) on these facts, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that petitioner established the existence of one or more grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent’s incarceration left him unable to
provide proper care or custody for the child. He admitted that he had no alternative placement
options for the girl and could provide her virtually no support. It was undisputed that he would
not be able to provide for her care and custody by the time she reached the age of majority, and
-1-
perhaps not until his maximum discharge date in 2029. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (h).
Termination of respondent’s parental rights was therefore proper.
Respondent also argues that the trial court erred in determining that termination was in
the child’s best interests. We disagree. Contrary to respondent’s argument, the evidence did not
show that termination was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5);
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
