IN RE KAVANAGH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of VANESSA KAVANAGH, CORY
KAVANAGH and MICHAEL KAVANAGH,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 25, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221281
Bay Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-005085-NA
SADIE KAVANAGH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ALEXANDER EMBRY, JAMES CATES and
VICTOR LITTLE,
Respondents.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Jansen and R. B. Burns*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Kavanagh appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 51-52; 501 NW2d
231 (1993). Further, the evidence did not establish that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5).
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Therefore, the family court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. In re
Trejo, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 112528, decided 7/5/2000), slip op at 14-18.
Although respondent also contends that the family court erred in terminating her parental rights
to the youngest child because it considered inadmissible evidence when terminating her parental rights to
the child at the initial dispositional hearing, MCR 5.974(D), respondent does not specify what evidence,
if any, was improperly received during the adjudicatory phase or what inadmissible evidence w
as
improperly considered by the court in deciding to terminate her parental rights to the child. Because
“[a] party may not merely announce [her] position and leave it to us to discover and rationalize the basis
for [her] claim,” this issue is not properly before us and we decline to consider it. In re Toler, 193
Mich App 474, 477; 484 NW2d 672 (1992).
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Robert B. Burns
-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.
