IN RE TUCKER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ANTHONY TUCKER, AARON
TUCKER, and ADAM TUCKER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 218685
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-019009-NA
CHARLES TUCKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARIE TUCKER,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ANTHONY TUCKER, AARON
TUCKER, and ADAM TUCKER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 218822
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-019009-NA
MARIE TUCKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES TUCKER,
-1-
Respondent.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal by right from the family court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and
(j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground for
termination was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 350, 352, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). During the long period of time that the children were in foster care,
respondents demonstrated that they could not provide a suitable and stable home for the children.
Further, the evidence did not establish that termination of respondents’ parental rights was clearly
not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); Trejo, supra
at 354. Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the
children.
Although respondents claim that they were denied due process because the initial
dispositional hearing was not timely held, MCR 5.973(A)(2), they did not raise this issue below,
and we are satisfied that the seven-day delay had no affect on the outcome of the case.
Therefore, this issue does not warrant appellate relief. In re Hildebrant, 216 Mich App 384, 389;
548 NW2d 715 (1996). Further, notice of proceedings involves a personal right and, therefore,
respondents lack standing to argue that there was a deficiency in the service with respect to the
minor child Aaron. See In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 21; 610 NW2d 563 (2000).
We affirm.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
