IN RE MOTLEY/POSEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CARLA MARIE POSEY, and
ANDREA ANNIE POSEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 20, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222517
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 81-224078
CARLTON WILLIAM POSEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LINDORA MOTLEY,
Respondent.
In the Matter of JENNIFER COSTELLA MOTLEY,
LATIASHA LOUISE MOTLEY, JERRY DANIEL
MOTLEY, JR., CARLA MARIE POSEY, and
ANDRA ANNIE POSEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222518
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 81-224078
LINDORA MOTLEY,
-1
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CARLTON WILLIAM POSEY,
Respondent.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Talbot and J.B. Sullivan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the family court order terminating their parental
rights pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
After carefully reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the family court did not clearly err in
finding that §19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both
respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Because
only one statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental rights, we need not decide whether
termination was also warranted under § 19b(3)(j). MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 360; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Further, we find no clear error in the trial
court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354, 364. Therefore, the family court did not err in
terminating respondents’-appellants’ rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Joseph B. Sullivan
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-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.
