IN RE BAILEY MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of NICOLE AARON BAILEY, BRANDON RICHARD BAILEY, and MELANIE YOUNG BAILEY, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED March 31, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 205685 Ingham Juvenile Court LC No. 00004302 SUE ANN BAILEY, Respondent-Appellant, and RICHARD BAILEY, Respondent. Before: Bandstra, P.J., and MacKenzie and N.O. Holowka*, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ruling to admit the child’s statements. In re Hill, 221 Mich App 683, 696; 562 NW2d 254 (1997); In re Miller, 182 Mich App 70, 80; 451 NW2d 576 (1990). The statements had an adequate indicia of trustworthiness under MCR 5.972(C)(2). In re Brimer, 191 Mich App 401, 405; 478 NW2d 689 (1991). Further, the juvenile * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ court did not clearly err in finding that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). We affirm. /s/ Richard A. Bandstra /s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie /s/ Nick O. Holowka -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.