IN RE KIMBERLY ROOKER;CAMERON & HAROLD WARD II

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS __________________________________________ In the Matter of KIMBERLY ROOKER, HAROLD WARD, II, AND CAMERON WARD, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 26, 1997 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 200346 St. Clair Juvenile Court LC No. 95-000271 HAROLD WARD, SR., Respondent-Appellant, and ANGELA WARD, Respondent. Before: Markey, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. Respondent-appellant first argues that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction. We disagree. This case was undoubtedly within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Further, respondent-appellant consented to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the children and may not now collaterally attack it. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 437-439; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). Next, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the four-year-old child’s hearsay statements accusing respondent-appellant of sexually abusing her. The statements were admissible -1­ under MCR 5.972(C)(2). Therefore, the probate court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Lastly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-appellant’s motion for rehearing. The statements of his mother and younger sister, even if true, would not cause the court to reconsider its decision in this case. See MCR 5.992(A); In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 478; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). Affirmed. /s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Janet T. Neff /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.