IN RE HEATHER & VIRGINIA SMITH & DANIEL LEDESMA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of HEATHER SMITH, VIRGINIA
SMITH and DANIEL LEDESMA, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 20, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 211878
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 89-000215
SUE DALDINE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STEWART SMITH and DANIEL LEDESMA, SR.,
Respondents.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Gribbs and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich
App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Even if the family court erred in terminating respondent
appellant’s parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii), it did not err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(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 termination of her
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
-1
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
