IN RE PARRIET MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of STEVEN PARRIET and KAREN
PARRIET, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 1, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221353
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-013563-NA
KIMBERLY BECKWITH, a/k/a KIMBERLY
PARRIET,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory grounds for
termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, but only challenges the court’s findings
with respect to §§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (ii) and (j) only. Because only one statutory ground is required in order
to terminate parental rights, In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991), and
because respondent does not challenge the court’s findings with respect to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g),
respondent is not entitled to appellate relief with regard to the question whether a statutory ground for
termination was established. See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98; 585 NW2d 326 (1998);
Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113;
413 NW2d 744 (1987). In any event, we are satisfied that, at a minimum, the court did not clearly err
in finding that §§ 19b(3)(b)(i) and (j) were both established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR
5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
-1
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); In re
Trejo, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 112528, decided 7/5/2000), slip op at 14, 17.
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights to the children. Id., slip op at
17.
Although respondent claims that the court was not authorized under § 19b(5) to delay making a
final decision on the termination petition pending further counseling services, viewed as a whole, we find
nothing in the language of § 19b that prohibited the court, within its discretion, from delaying its decision
pending further testimony after additional family counseling was provided.
Finally, respondent has not established that her hearing impairment was not properly
accommodated in the services that petitioner provided. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25-26; 610
NW2d 563 (2000). There is ample evidence that numerous services were provided to respondent and
nothing in the record indicates that respondent was not able to take advantage of these services due to
her hearing disability.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
-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.
