IN RE PIPPEN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHRISTINA J. ANISE PIPPEN and
MARCEELA FAITH PIPPEN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 218722
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 81-224295
DARENCE PIPPEN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JANICE MARIE PIPPEN,
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from a family court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) and (k)(ii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(h) and (k)(ii). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant contends that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the
children because he had placed them with his sister. However, this issue involves a challenge to the
court’s exercise of jurisdiction, which can only be challenged in a direct attack. Respondent-appellant is
precluded from collaterally attacking the court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this appeal from the order
terminating parental rights. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 436-438; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In re
Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995). Respondent-appellant’s reliance on
-1
In re Curry, 113 Mich App 821; 318 NW2d 567 (1982), is misplaced because the respondents in that
case directly appealed the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
To the extent that respondent-appellant’s argument may be viewed as a challenge to the trial
court’s decision to terminate under §19b(3)(h), we conclude that it is unnecessary to consider this
issue. Only one statutory ground must be proven in order to terminate parental rights. In re Huisman,
230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). Here, respondent-appellant’s parental rights
were also terminated under § 19b(3)(k)(ii) and respondent-appellant does not address the merits of that
decision. Failure to address this necessary issue precludes appellate relief. See In re JS and SM, 231
Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998).
We affirm.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
