IN RE BENNETT MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of T.B., R.B., and S.B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 13, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 243663
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-004043
RICKY R. BENNETT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TONYA BENNETT,
Respondent.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Meter and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights to his three minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that 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). Two of the minor children were previous victims of sexual and physical
abuse, and all three exhibited extreme behaviors. Respondent-appellant encouraged the children
to falsely accuse their foster father of sexual assault in order to manipulate the return of the
children. Respondent-appellant pleaded guilty to the false report of a felony charge and agreed
to serve up to nine months in jail. He had a history of domestic violence and other assaultive
conduct. He did not make suitable arrangements to take care of his children during his period of
incarceration. In addition, during the time the girls were in foster care, respondent-appellant
failed to establish consistent and appropriate housing, especially given the unique needs of the
children, and he failed to adequately supervise his children during unsupervised visits. Thus, the
trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
-1-
Moreover, respondent-appellant did not object in the trial court to the court’s exercise of
personal jurisdiction over him or its failure to personally serve him with the summons and
petition requesting termination of his parental rights. Therefore, we review the jurisdictional
issue raised by respondent-appellant for plain error that affected respondent-appellant’s
substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 774; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Respondentappellant was personally served with the original petition,1 attended all proceedings along with
counsel, testified himself at the termination trial, and presented witnesses on his own behalf.
Under these circumstances, even if a plain error occurred, we cannot say that the error affected
respondent-appellant’s substantial rights.2 Accordingly, reversal is unwarranted.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Donald S. Owens
1
The referee handed respondent a copy of the initial petition at the preliminary hearing and
advised him of his right to counsel.
2
Moreover, we note that in In re CR, 250 Mich App 185, 202-203; 646 NW2d 506 (2002), this
Court stated that once jurisdiction over a child is properly established, the court is empowered to
make determinations against any adult and may enter orders it considers necessary for the
interests of the child.
-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.
