IN RE FINCHAM; GUMP AND WOODHAM; MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JENNIFER MARIE FINCHAM,
BRIANNA NICHOLE GUMP, a/k/a BRIANA
NICHOLE GUMP, and JESSICA LYNN
WOODHAM, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 16, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 209390
Branch Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-000022 NA
ROXANNE FINCHAM,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD GUMP,
Respondent,
and
DAVID WOODHAM,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Saad and P.H. Chamberlain*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Roxanne Fincham appeals by delayed leave granted the juvenile court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
-1
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 Bechard, 211
Mich App 155, 159; 535 NW2d 220 (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. MCL
712A.2(b); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b).
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.
