IN RE HILL & KENDALL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.R.K., III, and W.E.K., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 27, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227014
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-004997-NA
DANIEL R. KENDALL, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DESTINY ROSCOE,
Respondent.
In the Matter of B.M.K., D.R.K., III, and W.E.K.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 227099
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-004997-NA
DESTINY ROSCOE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DANIEL R. KENDALL, JR. and JOHN ROBERT
HILL,
Respondents.
-1-
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Whitbeck and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 227014, respondent Kendall appeals as of right from a family court order
terminating his parental rights to his two minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and
(b)(ii); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i) and (b)(ii) at the initial dispositional hearing. In Docket
No. 227099, respondent Roscoe appeals as of right from the same family court order, which
terminated her parental rights to her three minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii),
and (m); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), and (m). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that subsections 19b(3)(b)(i) and (b)(ii)
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents, and that the
evidence warranted termination at the initial dispositional hearing. MCR 5.974(D) and (I); In re
Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Termination at the initial dispositional
hearing was mandatory because the petition requested termination, the children were found to
come within the jurisdiction of the court, and the evidence provided proof that the children were
physically abused and that the situation would not improve.1
Furthermore, the court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondents’
parental rights was not clearly contrary to the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the
family court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children. Trejo, supra
at 356-357.2
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
1
Justification for terminating parental rights at the initial dispositional hearing can be based on
surrounding circumstances and is not limited to the grounds listed in § 19a of the Juvenile Code.
See 1988 staff comment following MCR 5.993.
2
We also reject respondent Roscoe’s argument that the family court lost jurisdiction to terminate
her parental rights because the court did not issue its opinion within twenty-eight days of taking
final proofs as required by MCR 5.974(G)(1). The court rule does not provide a sanction for its
violation, and this Court will not impose a sanction that the Legislature and Supreme Court have
declined to impose. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28-29; 501 NW2d 182 (1993).
-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.
