IN RE HAWK POWELL MASON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of VIRGIL ACE H. POWELL, HAWK
POWELL MASON, JEFFERY EUGENE POWELL
and ZANE EUGENE PRESTON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 207622
Cass Juvenile Court
LC Nos. 94-000426 NA
94-000427 NA
94-000428 NA
94-000429 NA
FAITH MARIE MASON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN MOSIER, DUANE MARLO MASON, JR.,
KENNETH GRIFFIN and PAUL DEAN PRESTON,
Respondents.
In the Matter of HANK POWELL MASON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 207732
Cass Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-000427 NA
DUANE MARLO MASON, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1
and
FAITH MARIE MASON,
Respondent.
Before: Young, Jr., P.J., and Wahls and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents Faith Mason and Duane Mason, Jr. appeal as of right the juvenile court orders
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re
Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). The evidence indicated that
respondent Faith Mason had not resolved her inability to manage a household and could not understand
why her children were removed. The evidence indicated that respondent Duane Mason was unable to
overcome his alcohol abuse problem and he too refused to recognize the reasons for his child’s
removal.
The juvenile court did not err in denying respondent Duane Mason’s request for a separate trial.
People v Harris, 201 Mich App 147, 152; 505 NW2d 889 (1993). Moreover, evidence concerning
Mason’s treatment of his child’s siblings was relevant to the issue of his treatment of his own child. See
In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 588-593; 528 NW2d 799 (1995).
If the court finds that one or more of the statutory grounds apply, MCL 712A.19(b)(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5) requires that parental rights be terminated, unless the court finds that termination
“is clearly not in the child’s best interests.” The burden of going forward with evidence that termination
is clearly not in a child’s best interest rests with the respondent. In re Hall-Smith, supra at 473. Here,
both respondents failed to show that termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the children’s
best interests. Furthermore, contrary to what respondent Faith Mason argues, the court was not
required to consider the best interest factors under the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.23; MSA
25.312(3), in determining the children’s best interests. In re Barlow, 404 Mich 216, 235-236; 273
NW2d 35 (1978). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the
children.
Affirmed.
-2
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.