IN RE PRESTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ROBERT PRESTON and DAKOTA
PRESTON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 18, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 220045
Ogemaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-010681
PAUL PRESTON, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TINA MCCAIN,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T. L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted the family court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g).1 We affirm.
The family court 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, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant
does not specifically argue, nor does the record indicate, that termination of his parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). Thus, we
find no clear error in the family court’s decision to terminate respondent-appellant’s parental rights to
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the children. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997); see also In re
JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98; 585 NW2d 326 (1998).
We decline to address respondent-appellant's claim involving the family court's decision at the
permanency planning hearing because it does not involve a jurisdictional impediment to the family court's
authority to entertain the termination petition and our affirmation of the court’s decision to terminate
renders this issue moot. See Contesti v Attorney General, 164 Mich App 271, 278; 416 NW2d 410
(1987), In re Kirkwood, 187 Mich App 542, 546; 468 NW2d 280 (1991).
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
1
Contrary to respondent-appellant's argument on appeal, the record indicates that the family court did
not terminate his parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(b)(ii) or (j), but instead relied solely on §§ 19b(3)(c)(i)
and (g).
-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.
