IN RE ROBBINS & POWELL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRITTANY ROBBINS, TIFFANY
POWELL and JHONATHAN POWELL, Minors
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 12, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201984
Bay Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-005471 NA
JAMES S. POWELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
REBECCA JUNE POWELL,
a/k/a BECKY POWELL,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 201986
Bay Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-005471 NA
REBECCA JUNE POWELL, a/k/a BECKY
POWELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES S. POWELL,
Respondent.
-1
Before: MacKenzie, P.J., and Hood and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals as of right, respondents challenge the juvenile court order that
terminated their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (g);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (g). This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the children’s out-of-court statements
describing various sexual acts perpetrated against them. Even though there was no direct evidence that
Jhonathan was subjected to sexual abuse, he qualifies as a child whose siblings were abused. The
nature and totality of the circumstances surrounding the statements provide an adequate indicia of
trustworthiness, and there is sufficient corroborative evidence of the acts to justify admission of the
statements under MCR 5.972(C)(2). In re Brimer, 191 Mich App 401, 405; 478 NW2d 689 (1991).
The juvenile 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). Further, respondents failed to present evidence showing that termination of
parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App
470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights. MCL 712.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Contrary to what
respondent Becky Powell argues, MCL 712.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5) does not
unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof from the government to the parent to show that termination is
not in the child’s best interests. In re Hamlet, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No.
198096, issued 9/26/97), slip op at 8.
Affirmed.
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Harold Hood
/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.
