IN RE BRANDON MICHAEL ROBINSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_________________________________________
In the Matter of BRANDON MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Minor.
UNPUBLISHED
November 4, 2004
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254451
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-030134-RL
JASON MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals by delayed leave granted the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights following his execution of a voluntary release of his parental rights. We affirm.
Respondent argues that the trial court did not have sufficient grounds to assume
jurisdiction of the child in this case. Because this Court’s review is limited to the original record,
we cannot determine whether the trial court had sufficient grounds to assume jurisdiction or
whether the trial court ever assumed jurisdiction. Wiand v Wiand, 178 Mich App 137, 143; 443
NW2d 464 (1989); MCR 7.210(A). However, if the trial court assumed jurisdiction, respondent
no longer has the ability to challenge the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction because he did not
directly appeal the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction or request a rehearing of this issue
pursuant to MCR 3.922. In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). If
the trial court did not assume jurisdiction, reversal is still not warranted. The trial court was not
required to conduct adjudication prior to its acceptance of respondent’s voluntary release of
parental rights. In re Tyler, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued
February 29, 2000 (Docket No. 246085); MCL 712A.19b(3)(m).
Respondent also argues that he was not given an opportunity to provide proper care and
custody by participation in or compliance with a case service plan. However, termination of
parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing is authorized by MCL 712A.19b(4) and MCR
3.973. Moreover, respondent’s parental rights were terminated pursuant to his own voluntary
release of parental rights, not because the trial court found that respondent failed to provide
proper care and custody of the child. Under these circumstances, respondent is not entitled to
appellate relief because petitioner did not prepare a case service plan for him.
-1-
The record does not support respondent’s argument that the trial court may not terminate
his parental rights based only on the best interests of the child because the trial court entered an
order terminating respondent’s parental rights only after he voluntarily released his rights to the
child. In addition, the trial court need not specify a statutory basis for termination, if respondent
voluntarily releases his parental rights. In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 477; 484 NW2d 672
(1992).
Finally, a review of the record reveals that the trial court carefully and extensively
investigated respondent’s understanding of his parental rights and properly determined his
willingness to release those rights. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
accepting respondent’s voluntary release of parental rights. In re Blankenship, 165 Mich App
706, 714; 418 NW2d 919 (1988).
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
