IN RE JUSTIN WHITE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JW, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 8, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234946
Jackson Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-092109-NA
KIMBERLY WHITE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN MASHBURN,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This case is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If the court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence one or more of the statutory
grounds for termination, the court 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); Trejo, supra at 351-354.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established the existence of
one or more grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. The conditions that led
to the trial court’s assertion of jurisdiction included respondent-appellant’s inability to
adequately supervise the child and concerns for his safety. These problems continued to exist at
the time of termination. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i). In addition, there was clear and convincing
evidence that respondent was unable to communicate with the child, control his behavior, or
-1-
provide him with the structured environment he needed, and that he remained at risk of hurting
himself. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). Termination of respondent’s parental rights was
therefore proper.
Respondent-appellant also argues that the trial court erred in determining that termination
was in the child’s best interests. We disagree. Contrary to her argument, the evidence did not
show that termination was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5);
Trejo, supra at 356-357.
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
