IN RE JARELL MELVIN J'SON ALEXANDER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMES ROUMEL ALEXANDER,
JAIVON L. ALEXANDER and JAQUITA L.
ALEXANDER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 9, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 205618
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-323217
GLORIA L. ALEXANDER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RANDY SIMPSON, MARTY BULLOCK and
JOHNNY POWELL,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JARELL MELVIN ALEXANDER,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 210995
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-323217
GLORIA LYNN ALEXANDER,
-1
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MELVIN ADAMS,
Respondent.
_________________________________________
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Hood and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 205618, respondent appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating
her parental rights to James Alexander, Jaivon Alexander and JaQuita Alexander pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). In Docket No. 210995,
respondent appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental rights to Jarell
Alexander pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g),
(i) and (j). We affirm.
The court did not clearly err in either case in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 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,
once a statutory ground for termination is shown to exist, termination of parental rights is mandatory
unless the court finds that termination is “clearly not” in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). The burden is on the respondent to put forth evidence showing that
termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, supra. In this case, respondent
failed to put forth evidence from which the court could conclude that termination of her parental rights
was “clearly not” in the children’s best interests. Hence, the court did not err in terminating
respondent’s parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-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.
