IN RE JACOB JAMAL HILL MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J. J. H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235028
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-340815
LASHAWN MONIQUE HILL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN WADE,
Respondent,
and
JOHN DOE,
Non-Party.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Griffin and G. S. Buth*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to
the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(g) and (j). We affirm.
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
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests.
712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 351-354.
MCL
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. Respondent-appellant
has spent relatively little time caring for the child, with her contact limited to weekends between
October 1998 and April 2000. She does not fully recognize the boy’s physical limitations and
has abdicated all responsibility for his schooling, physical and occupational therapy, and medical
appointments. Respondent-appellant’s emotional instability also makes it doubtful that she
would be able to properly care for a child with extraordinary special needs. MCL
712A.19b(3)(g). For the same reasons, termination was appropriate under subsection (j).
Respondent-appellant’s history of irresponsible behavior and poor judgment make it reasonably
likely that this child would suffer harm if returned to respondent-appellant’s home. Termination
of her parental rights was therefore proper.
Respondent-appellant also argues the trial court erred in determining that termination was
in the child’s best interests. We disagree. Contrary to respondent-appellant’s 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.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ George S. Buth
-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.
