IN RE JOHNSON & ROBINSON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of VIVIEN SHERARD ROBINSON, VIVICA SHALANDA ROBINSON, VONYEE SHALEIK ROBINSON, VALDIS SILVANUS ROBINSON, VINCENT STAMISLAUS JOHNSON, and VANESSA SEMIRA JOHNSON, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 23, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v CHARLIE MAE ROBINSON BIODUN JOHNSON, a/k/a JOHNSON, and VICTOR VICTOR B. No. 215940; 216351 Saginaw Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-024699 NA Respondents-Appellants. Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Hood and Whitbeck, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In Docket No. 215940, respondent-appellant Charlie Mae Robinson appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). In Docket No. 216351, respondent-appellant Victor Biodun Johnson, a/k/a Victor B. Johnson, appeals by delayed leave granted from the family court order terminating his parental rights to Vanessa Semira Johnson and Vincent Stamislaus Johnson pursuant to MCL 712.A19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument, the parties having submitted the matter on briefs. The family court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(c)(i) was established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, -1­ 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Because only one statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental rights, In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991), it is unnecessary to determine whether termination was also warranted under the remaining statutory grounds. Further, respondents failed to show that termination of their 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, the family court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children. Id. Affirmed. /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Harold Hood /s/ William C. Whitbeck -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.