IN RE GAGE DAKOTA BROWN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of GAGE DAKOTA BROWN, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, f/k/a
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 24, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 199488
Van Buren Probate Court
LC No. 94-009512
HAROLD BROWN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STACEY FERGUSON,
Respondent.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Reilly and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the probate court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). We affirm. This
case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The probate court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of his parental rights
was clearly not in the child’s best interest. In re Hall-Smith, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___
(Docket No. 195833, issued 3/25/97), slip op p 3. Thus, the probate court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
-1
Respondent-appellant’s argument that the probate court lost jurisdiction over this case by not
issuing an opinion within twenty-eight days after the termination hearing, as required by MCR
5.974(G)(1), does not require reversal. See In re Mayfield, 198 Mich App 226, 230-231; 497
NW2d 578 (1993).
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
