IN RE LINA MARLENE MEIKA PEREZ MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LINA MARLENE MEIKA PEREZ,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 1999
Petitioner,
and
ARNULFO PEREZ and LINA PEREZ,
Petitioners-Appellees,
v
No. 214917
Ottawa Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-000095 NA
SUMMER CARTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARCO PEREZ,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(f), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(f), (g)
and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
-1
The family court did not clearly err in finding that jurisdiction was established under MCL
712A.2(b)(5); MSA 27.3178(598.2)(b)(2), by a preponderance of the evidence. MCR 5.972(C)(1);
In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 476; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). Furthermore, the family court did not
clearly err 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). Respondent
appellant also failed to show that termination of her parental rights w clearly not in the child’s best
as
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470,
473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Finally, there is no merit to respondent-appellant’s claim that a fraud was committed upon the
court relative to the respondent-father’s voluntary release of his parental rights. Indeed, respondent
appellant’s parental rights were terminated without regard to the respondent-father’s parental rights and
respondent-appellant has no standing to raise on appeal issues pertaining to the termination of the
respondent-father’s parental rights. In the Matter of Campbell, 129 Mich App 780, 784; 342 NW2d
607 (1983).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
