IN RE MARKITA DYMON TERRY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.D.T., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 2, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 229768
Wayne County Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-340663
PAMELA DURR,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL TERRY,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J. and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g) and (h). We affirm. This
case has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondentmother. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The additional
statutory grounds were applicable to respondent-father and he is not a party to this appeal.
Further, because at least one ground for termination was established, the court was required to
terminate respondent-appellant's parental rights unless the court found that termination was
clearly not in the child's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 364-365;
612 NW2d 407 (2000). The court's finding regarding the child's best interests was not clearly
erroneous. Trejo, supra.
Moreover, the family court did not err in accepting and relying on the testimony of a new
caseworker. Regard is given to the special ability of the family court to judge the credibility of
the witnesses who appear before it, Miller, supra at 337, and the family court may decide the
relative weight it will give each witness’s testimony.
-1-
Furthermore, the family court did not fail to comply with MCR 5.974(G) in expressing its
conclusions of law by checking boxes corresponding to the applicable statutory subsections. The
family court’s findings of fact, and its checking of the appropriate boxes, illustrated that the
family court was aware of the specific issues present in this case and correctly applied the law to
the facts.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-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.
