IN RE ADRIAN LONEW KEMPHER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ADRIAN LONEW KEMPHER,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 18, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221552
Mecosta Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-003302-NA
DONALD KEMPHER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TINA WILLIAMSON,
Respondent.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Doctoroff and T. L. Ludington*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by delayed leave granted from a family court order terminating
his parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Although respondent-appellant argues that the statutory grounds for termination were not
proven by clear and convincing evidence, he does not address in his brief the specific elements of the
three statutory grounds for termination that were relied upon by the trial court. This deficiency could
preclude appellate relief. See Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development
Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987); cf. In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98;
585 NW2d 326 (1998). In any event, having considered respondent-appellant's arguments in light of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the statutory requirements, we are not persuaded that the family court clearly erred 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 address the best interests prong of the termination
decision and our review of the record leads us to conclude that no basis for vacating the family court's
decision to terminate respondent-appellant's parental rights is evident from the record. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564
NW2d 156 (1997).
Finally, we reject respondent-appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that his
constitutional rights to equal protection were violated. Respondent-appellant has not shown plain error
affecting his substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 774; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Thomas L. Ludington
-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.
