IN RE CUTTING/JAMESON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER LEE CUTTING, PATRICK MICHAEL JAMESON, II, and AMBER ROSE JAMESON, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 3, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 211103 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 95-334976 PAMELA SUE CUTTING, Respondent-Appellant, and LEONARD GHURZENSKI and PATRICK MICHAEL JAMESON, Respondents. Before: Markman P.J., and Saad and P. D. Houk*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The record does not indicate that respondent-appellant sought judicial review of the referee's findings and recommendations in accordance with MCR 5.991. In any event, the referee did not clearly * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624 ; 593 NW2d 520 (Docket No. 113069, issued May 25, 1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, In re Sours, supra, it is unnecessary to determine whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was also warranted under § 19b(3)(j). Finally, 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 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, we uphold the judge's entry of the termination order based on the referee's findings and recommendations. Petitioner's request for relief under MCR 7.215(E) is denied. Affirmed. /s/ Stephen J. Markman /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Peter D. Houk -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.