IN RE ZONDELL PARRELL RICHBURG MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ZONDELL PARRELL
RICHBURG, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 16, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 245001
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 92-297309
ANNIE JOYCE RICHBURG,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Murphy and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted from a circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (i). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
To the extent respondent challenges the trial court’s assumption of jurisdiction, we find
no basis for relief. Apart from the fact that respondent did not raise this issue in her statement of
questions presented as required by MCR 7.212(C), she conceded at the hearing that the evidence
was sufficient to establish jurisdiction and thus cannot claim error on appeal. People v Carter,
462 Mich 206, 215-216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000); Living Alternatives for the Developmentally
Disabled, Inc v Dep’t of Mental Health, 207 Mich App 482, 484; 525 NW2d 466 (1994).
A court may terminate a parent’s rights when at least one statutory ground for termination
has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592
NW2d 751 (1999). There is no dispute that respondent’s parental rights to six other children had
been terminated due to serious and chronic neglect. At a minimum, respondent’s chronic
substance abuse caused her to ignore these children and her duties as a parent. She was offered
treatment plans for rehabilitation and reunification but failed to comply with them, apparently
unwilling to give up drugs and her destructive lifestyle on the streets. Therefore, we find that the
trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights under § 19b(3)(i). We
further find that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that evidence did not establish
-1-
that termination was clearly not in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
