IN RE NYLAH ANGELEKA WALKER MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of NYLAH ANGELEKA WALKER, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED March 5, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 212076 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 91-291308 ANTRICE N. MCKINNEY, Respondent-Appellant, and ATTRICE SINGLETON, Respondent. Before: McDonald, P.J., and Hood and Doctoroff, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i) or (c)(ii), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i) or (c)(ii), (g) and (j). We affirm. It appears from the record that the juvenile court inadvertently referred to § 19b(3)(c)(ii) as a statutory basis for termination when it actually intended to terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights under § 19b(3)(c)(i). Regardless, any error was harmless because only one statutory ground for termination is required, In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993), and the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the remaining statutory grounds for termination, specifically §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (j), were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that -1­ termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the -2­ child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child. Id. Affirmed. /s/ Gary R. McDonald /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Martin M. Doctoroff -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.