IN RE KALIMULLAH MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of RAHEEM I. KALIMULLAH and ISMAIL M. KALIMULLAH, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED August 10, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 214184 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 93-310633 ISMAIL MIKAL KALIMULLAH, Respondent-Appellant, and DEBRA LOUISE THOMAS, Respondent. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and W. E. Collette,* JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating his parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. Respondent-appellant argues that there was no clear and convincing evidence presented below to support the termination under § 19b(3)(c)(i). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the family court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(c)(i) was established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Furthermore, even if termination was not justified under § 19b(3)(c)(i), respondent-appellant is not entitled to appellate relief with regard to the issue of petitioner’s burden of establishing a statutory ground for termination, because he does not * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ address the family court’s determination that termination was also warranted under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (j). See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998) (observing that the failure to brief merits of an allegation of error is deemed abandonment of the issue); Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987) (observing that the failure to address an issue which necessarily must be reached precludes relief). Finally, respondent-appellant does not specifically argue, nor does the record indicate, that termination of his parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ William E. Collette -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.