IN RE RAYMOND DOUGLAS JARRETT JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of RAYMOND DOUGLAS JARRETT,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 3, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 218620
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-319160
LATANJA KERENISA GLOVER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RAYMOND DOUGLAS JARRETT,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and J. R. Cooper*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (i) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (i) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In reviewing respondent-appellant's claim, we note initially that the record fails to indicate that
respondent-appellant sought judicial review of the referee's findings and recommendations in
accordance with MCR 5.991. Nonetheless, we are satisfied from the record that the referee did not
clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing
evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller,
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). We find that this case is factually distinguishable from In
re Newman, 189 Mich App 61; 472 NW2d 38 (1991). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show
that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child'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 decision terminating respondent's parental rights based on the
written recommendation of the referee. Petitioner's request for relief under MCR 7.215(E) is denied.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
