IN RE FOREMAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of B.F., J.F. and C.F., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 24, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235472
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-014612-NA
MARK FOREMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHRISTIAN WAGNER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of B.F., J.F. and C.F., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235508
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-014612-NA
CHRISTIAN WAGNER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARK FOREMAN,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Jansen and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the order terminating
their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g)
and (j). We affirm.
The trial 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 Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Although the trial court failed to comply with MCR 5.971 before accepting respondents’
admissions to certain allegations in the temporary custody petition involving respondents’ fourth
child, respondents did not raise this issue below and, therefore, it is not preserved. Moreover,
appellate relief is not warranted on the basis of this unpreserved issue because it is apparent that
respondents were not prejudiced by the noncompliance. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 752753, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Respondents’ admissions related only to their fourth child,1
not the three children who are the subject of this appeal. Although respondents claim that their
admissions that they missed counseling appointments were used against them to terminate their
parental rights to the three older children, any error in this regard was harmless in light of the
fact that petitioner presented undisputed testimony at the termination hearing that respondents
had missed many counseling appointments during the first eight months the children were in
care, and that respondents had begun missing counseling appointments again just prior to the
termination hearing. Furthermore, respondents’ parental rights were not terminated based on
their failure to attend some of the counseling sessions. Termination was principally based on the
fact that respondent father physically abused B.F. and continued to present a serious threat of
physical harm to the children, and that respondent mother continued to remain unable to protect
the children from respondent father.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
1
Unfortunately, the child died during the course of these proceedings.
-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.
