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 FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED February 5, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 212140 Clinton Juvenile Court LC No. 96-004739 NA BRENDA SEARLES, Respondent-Appellant, and MICHAEL LOW,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.