IN RE JESSICA RENEE WILLIAMS; MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JESSICA RENEE WILLIAMS,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 206197
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-325728
RUBY WILLIAMS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEON WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
Before: Young, Jr., P.J., and Wahls and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j). We affirm.
We consider abandoned respondent-appellant’s argument that the juvenile court erred in failing
to order an adjournment because the argument lacks citation to supporting authority and is not included
in the statement of questions presented. See Meagher v McNeely & Lincoln, Inc, 212 Mich App
154, 156; 536 NW2d 851 (1995); In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 477; 484 NW2d 672 (1992).
Regardless, the record does not indicate that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying an
adjournment. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993).
-1
With regard to the termination decision itself, respondent-appellant only challenges the
termination of her parental rights under § 19b(3)(h). Because only one statutory ground is necessary to
terminate parental rights and because respondent-appellant does not challenge the termination of her
parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j), respondent-appellant is not entitled to appellate relief
on this issue. Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App
109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987). In any event, 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, respondent-appellant failed to show
that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the 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). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the
child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
