IN RE CARDELLA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.C., A.C., and S.C., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240754
Chippewa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-012257-NA
PHILLIP CARDELLA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KATHLEEN CARDELLA,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Phillip Cardella appeals as of right the order terminating his parental rights to
his three children. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears the
burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341; 617 NW2d
407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that persuades the
court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is mandatory
unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id., 355-356.
Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., 356.
MCL 712A.19b(3) provides for termination of parental rights when
(g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or
custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be
able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
-1-
* * *
(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of
the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
There is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. The evidence showed that respondent had an intractable drug problem of
extensive duration that prevented him from providing proper care and custody of his children,
and created a likelihood of harm to them. The trial court did not err in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were met. Although there was testimony that the children loved
respondent, their best interests were not met by residing with him while he suffered from a
substance abuse problem.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
