IN RE DERRICK OMAR ERGANG MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DERRICK OMAR ERGANG,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 5, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288644
Grand Traverse Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-002319-NA
RODERICK MCGUIRE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J. and K.F. Kelly and Beckering, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to
the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (h), and (j). We affirm.
Although respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (h)
were each established by clear and convincing evidence, he does not challenge the trial court’s
determination that termination was also justified under § 19b(3)(j). Respondent’s failure to
address this issue, which must necessarily be reached to reverse the trial court, precludes
appellate relief. City of Riverview v Sibley Limestone, 270 Mich App 627, 638; 716 NW2d 615
(2006); see also In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in
part on other grounds by In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Nevertheless, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that grounds for termination
under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (h) were both established. MCR 3.977(G); In re Archer, 277 Mich App
71, 73; 744 NW2d 1 (2007). Respondent was convicted of first-degree felony-murder in 2005
and was serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Although he had filed a petition
for federal habeas corpus relief, there was no showing that he was likely to prevail and thus the
trial court could properly find that respondent would remain in prison for at least the next two
years. Even if respondent’s appeal were decided in his favor within the next few months and he
were immediately released, he would have to participate in services and demonstrate an ability to
properly parent the child on a full-time basis before reunification could be considered and the
evidence showed that he would not be able to do so within a reasonable time considering the
child’s age.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.
