IN RE ELKINS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JORDAN MICHELLE ELKINS,
CASSAUNDRA MARIE ELKINS, and CIARA
RENEE ELKINS, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 5, 2006
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 264510
Tuscola Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-008928-NA
DENNIS ELKINS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental rights
following his voluntary release of parental rights. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent challenges the trial court’s investigation into whether his parental rights
release was voluntarily made. See MCL 710.29(6). We review for abuse of discretion a trial
court’s investigation into a respondent’s release of parental rights. In re Blankenship, 165 Mich
App 706, 714; 418 NW2d 919 (1988). Respondent essentially concedes that his claimed errors
are not apparent from the lower court record. However, we are generally limited to claims based
on the record, MCR 7.210(A), and it is respondent’s obligation to create a sufficient record for
our review. Petraszewsky v Keeth (On Remand), 201 Mich App 535, 540; 506 NW2d 890
(1993). The record reflects that the trial court followed all of the required procedures for the
voluntary release of parental rights, and we see no reason to look beyond the record in this case.
First, there is no evidence that respondent did not understand his right to counsel. At
each hearing, the trial court reiterated that it would appoint counsel for respondent if he wished.
Further, the notices of hearing, with which respondent was personally served, indicate in writing
that respondent could have counsel and should request counsel as soon as possible if he wished
to have counsel at the hearing. There is no evidence on the record that respondent did not
understand his right to counsel.
-1-
Second, there is no indication that respondent would not have released his parental rights
if he had known that his children were living with their stepfather. Before releasing his parental
rights, respondent asked the court questions about the status of the children’s mother’s parental
rights and these questions were answered. Respondent had the opportunity to ask further
questions or to decide against voluntarily releasing his parental rights at that time. The record
before us does not indicate that respondent conditioned his release on the children’s living
arrangements, nor does it indicate respondent’s ignorance of the living arrangements. In short,
we agree with respondent that the record fails to substantiate his claims’ underlying facts, so we
need not address their legal merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its investigation
of respondent’s release or commit any other error in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
