IN RE KAYLA MYERS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of KAYLA MYERS, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED January 4, 2002 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 233269 Oakland Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 00-638916-NA KIMBERLEY LYNN MYERS, Respondent-Appellant, and JEFFREY J. MYERS, Respondent. Before: Meter, P.J., and Jansen and R. D. Gotham*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i) and (j). We affirm. Once a trial court determines that at least one statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence, it must terminate parental rights unless “there exists clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5), In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350, 364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent-appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. We disagree. We review the trial court’s findings in termination proceedings for clear error. In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 358; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). We do not believe that the record supports a finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established because termination under § 19b(3)(g) requires a showing of a neglectful act or omission. In re Jacobs, 433 Mich 24, 35-37; 444 NW2d 789 (1989). Because respondent-appellant never had custody of the child following her birth, no * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1- such showing was established. However, we do find that the record supports the trial court’s finding that the statutory grounds for termination under §§ 19b(3)(i) and (j) 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 child’s best interests. Therefore, we conclude that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was proper. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra ,pp 364-365. Affirmed. /s/ Patrick M. Meter /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Roy D. Gotham -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.