IN RE MONTANA R HART MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MONTANA R. HART, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 14, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231751
Alcona Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-001924-NA
LYLE HART,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
NELDA HART,
Respondent.
In the Matter of MONTANA R. HART, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 232436
Alcona Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-001924-NA
NELDA HART,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LYLE HART,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hood and Griffin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-father appeals as of right and respondentmother by delayed leave granted from the family court order terminating their parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (l). We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR
5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not
show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the
family court did not err in terminating respondent- appellants’ parental rights to the child.
In Docket No. 232436, respondent-mother also argues that MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(l) and
(m) are unconstitutional. Contrary to respondent-mother’s suggestion, the trial court did not rely
on § 19b(3)(c)(m) as a statutory basis for termination, and the voluntary relinquishment of her
parental rights to a previous child was not at issue. Moreover, because respondent-mother failed
to raise this issue below, and it need not be addressed by this Court because it is not decisive to
the outcome of the case. People v Jensen, 222 Mich App 575, 579; 564 NW2d 192 (1997). Only
one statutory ground need be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
-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.
