IN RE BRITTANIE AND MIKALA LOW MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRITTANIE LOW and
MIKALA LOW, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 5, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212140
Clinton Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-004739 NA
BRENDA SEARLES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL LOW,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Saad and P.H. Chamberlain*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from an order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g)
and (j). We affirm.
The juvenile court's exercise of jurisdiction can be challenged only on direct appeal, not by
collateral attack. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 439; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In re Powers, 208
Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). Therefore, this issue is not properly before this
Court. Id. In any event, the allegations contained in the petition were established by a preponderance
of the evidence and were sufficient to support the assumption of jurisdiction over the minor children.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
MCL 712A.2(b); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b); In re Systma, 197 Mich App 453, 454-455; 495 NW2d
804 (1992); In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 476; 484 NW2d 672 (1992).
Next, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCL 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337;
445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Further,
respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, supra.
Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Paul H. Chamberlain
-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.