IN RE DAQUAVIS DEVONTE RILEY MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of DAQUAVIS D. RILEY, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 19, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 216883 Saginaw Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-024848 NA RICKIE RILEY, Respondent-Appellant, and BRENDA DENISE BAILEY, Respondent. Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Gribbs and White, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right the family court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j). We affirm. Because respondent has not briefed the merits of the family court’s decision with respect to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j), appellate relief is not warranted with respect to the issue whether a statutory ground for termination was sufficiently proven. In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998) (failure to brief the merits of an allegation or error is deemed abandonment of an issue); Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987). In any event, we are satisfied that the family court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(h) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The court was not required to place the child with relatives in -1­ lieu of terminating respondent’s parental rights. MCL 712A.1(3); MSA 27.3178(598.1)(3); In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 453; 592 NW2d 751 (1999); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 52; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Further, respondent failed to show that termination of his parental rights was “clearly not” in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re HallSmith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. Id. Affirmed. /s/ William C. Whitbeck /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Helene N. White -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.