IN RE RASHEETA MICHELLE PEARL HUDGENS MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RASHEETA MICHELLE PEARL
HUDGENS, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 28, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212271
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 88-274324
MICHELLE RACHON POLLYHANNA
HUDGENS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RAYMOND BROWN,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Cavanagh and Fitzgerald, 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)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i),
(g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to
subpoena respondent-appellant’s medical records because the records were not necessary to her
defense. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 309; 521 NW2d 797 (1994); People v Stanaway, 446
Mich 643, 687-688; 521 NW2d 557 (1994). Respondent-appellant’s testimony that she had
submitted negative drug screens weekly and remained drug-free for a year was not contested. Issues
-1
aside from respondent-appellant’s drug use were also involved in the case, and the outcome of the
proceeding would not have been different if counsel had subpoenaed the medical records.
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). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights
was clearly not in the 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 family court did not err
in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.
