IN RE MEGAN SAMANTHA GEORGE

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of MEGAN SAMANTHA GEORGE, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 18, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v KRISTINE GEORGE-LUIS, a/k/a KRISTINE LUIS GEORGE, No. 203415 Oakland Juvenile Court LC No. 93-056936 NA Respondent-Appellant. Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii) and (g). We affirm. Respondent claims that the prosecutor lacked standing to file the supplemental petition to terminate her parental rights. This case is distinguishable from In re Hill, 206 Mich App 689, 691-692; 522 NW2d 914 (1994), because here the prosecutor appeared in the proceedings at the invitation of the juvenile court. In this regard, the juvenile court’s ruling is consistent with In re Hill, which expressly recognized that a prosecutor may obtain standing by invitation of the court. Id. Although respondent contends that the prosecutor must file an original petition when it obtains standing by invitation of the court, she has not cited any authority in support of this position. This Court will not search for authority to support a party’s position. Patterson v Allegan Co Sheriff, 199 Mich App 638, 640; 502 NW2d 368 (1993). Next, respondent claims that the juvenile court erred in finding a statutory basis for termination. We disagree. The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for termination, specifically § 19b(3)(g), was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); -1­ In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, because respondent failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the -2­ child’s best interests, MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997), the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Affirmed. /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -3­

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.