IN RE DANNY HOPPER II MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DANNY HOPPER II, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 220707
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-000101-NA
DANNY GENE HOPPER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
STACI ROBERTS,
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Sawyer and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from a family court order terminating his parental rights
to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Only one statutory ground for termination must be established in order to terminate parental
rights. In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). The family court did
not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both 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)(a)(ii) or (j). In re Huisman,
supra. Because respondent-appellant failed to show that termination was clearly not in the child’s best
interests,
MCL
712A.19b(5);
MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5),
the
family
-1
court did not err in terminating his parental rights to the child. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470,
472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
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.
