IN RE BURROUGHS; METCALFE & BREWER; MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DERRICK BURROUGHS, JAY LEN
BURROUGHS, RICO LUCAS BURROUGHS,
BYRON QUINTON METCALFE, BRANDON
JOSHUA BREWER and DWAYNE EARLIE
BREWER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 19, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212492
Kalamazoo Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-000045 NA
SHEILA BURROUGHS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KEVIN BENNETT, LEON BROWN, JR., LARRY
PEARSON, TOM METCALFE and HENRY
DWAYNE BREWER.
Respondents.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from a juvenile court order terminating
her 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.
Respondent-appellant does not challenge the juvenile court’s determination that the statutory
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Rather, she contends that
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5)1 is unconstitutional because it improperly shifts the
-1
burden of proof to the parent. Respondent-appellant did not preserve this issue for appeal by raising it
below. Michigan Up & Out of Poverty Now Coalition v Michigan, 210 Mich App 162, 167-168;
533 NW2d 339 (1995). In any event, this same argument was rejected by this Court in In re Hamlet
(After Remand), 225 Mich App 505, 521-523; 571 NW2d 750 (1997).
Next, respondent-appellant contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that she failed to
show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. We disagree.
The fact that respondent-appellant presented some evidence suggesting that termination was not in her
children’s best interests is not controlling. In re Martin, 450 Mich 204, 227; 538 NW2d 399 (1995).
We have reviewed the record in its entirety and find no clear error in the juvenile court’s decision to
terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372,
385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. Mackenzie
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
1
The statute provides: “If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental rights, the
court shall order termination of parental rights . . . unless the court finds that termination of parental
rights to the child is clearly not in the child’s best interests.”
-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.
