IN RE HYPASHA KITCHEN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ADONNIS
HYPASHA KITCHEN, Minors.
TATUM
and
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 2, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226702
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 91-018310-NA
VIVIAN MCINTOSH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GENE TATUM and RICHARD KITCHEN,
Respondents.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Doctoroff and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child, Hypasha Kitchen, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Although the circuit court failed to state a statutory basis for termination in the order or
on the record, appellate relief is not warranted because it is clear from the record and the context
of the proceedings that the court relied on §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j) as the statutory bases for
termination. Cf. In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 476; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). The court did not
clearly err in finding that those statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was
-1-
clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re
Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the family court did not err
in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
