IN RE VALENCIA MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of TV, YV, HV, and BV, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 30, 2001 Petitioner-Appellee, V No. 232114 Shiawassee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-008541-NA PAMELA SUE JURK, Respondent-Appellant. Before: White, P.J., and Talbot and E.R. Post*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (g). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). First, we reject respondent’s claim that the trial court improperly terminated her parental rights for reasons not alleged in the petition or supported by evidence presented during the termination hearing. Even if the trial court inappropriately considered respondent’s romantic relationships, we reject respondent’s due process claim because the petition adequately informed respondent of the statutory bases and the specific allegations of sexual abuse that formed the factual basis upon which termination was both sought and ordered. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 651; 484 NW2d 768 (1992). Respondent also claims that the evidence was insufficient to support termination of her parental rights to the children. We disagree. This Court reviews for clear error both the trial court’s decision that statutory grounds for terminating parental rights were proven by clear and convincing evidence and its decision regarding the children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We find that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Furthermore, considered in its entirety, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent's parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. Therefore, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent's parental rights. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1- Affirmed. /s/ Helene N. White /s/ Michael J. Talbot /s/ E.R. Post -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.