IN RE MOTLEY/FITZGERALD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALLANTAE’Y RAJAIE MOTLEY,
DEMARCUS DONTA’Y MOTLEY, MENYON
CHASMIER
MOTLEY
and
SHAQUILLE
SHAKOUR FITZGERALD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 9, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
DELORES COSTELLA MOTLEY, ANTOINE
DODSON, SIDNEY TRIMBLE and MARCELLUS
EASTLAND,
No. 220347
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-357941
Respondents,
and
REGINALD STUART DOUGLAS,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of ALLANTAE’Y RAJAIE MOTLEY,
DEMARCUS DONTA’Y MOTLEY, MENYON
CHASMIER
MOTLEY
and
SHAQUILLE
SHAKOUR FITZGERALD, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221621
-1
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-357941
DELORES COSTELLA MOTLEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
REGINALD STUART DOUGLAS, ANTOINE
DODSON, SIDNEY TRIMBLE and MARCELLUS
EASTLAND,
Respondents.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In Docket No. 220347, respondent-appellant Reginald Douglas appeals as of right the
termination of his parental rights to the minor child, Allantae’y Motley, pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). In Docket No. 221621,
respondent-appellant Delores Motley appeals as of right the termination of her parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g)
and (j). We affirm.
Only one statutory ground must be established in order to terminate parental rights. In re
Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). Here, we conclude that the family
court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both established by clear and
convincing evidence with respect to each respondent. 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)(j). In re Huisman, supra. Because respondents-appellants failed to show that
termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests, MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), the family court did not err in terminating their parental rights. In re
Boursaw, 239 Mich App 161, 179-180; 607 NW2d 408 (1999); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App
470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
