IN RE MERCEDES & WENDY SUTTON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of MERCEDES SUTTON and WENDY SUTTON, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED October 5, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 217465 Midland Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-000233 NA ARLENE SUTTON, Respondent-Appellant, and TOD SUTTON, Respondent. Before: Griffin, P.J., and Zahra and Pavlich*, 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)(b)(ii), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii), (g) and (j). We affirm. It is necessary to establish only one statutory ground for termination, MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3), in order to terminate parental rights. In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384­ 385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). Here, we conclude that the family court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Accordingly, we need not decide whether termination was also proper under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii) and (j). In re Huisman, supra. Because respondent-appellant failed to * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ show that termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests, MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), the family court did not err in terminating her parental rights to the children. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Affirmed. /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Brian K. Zahra /s/ Scott L. Pavlich -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.