IN RE CLINARD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.C., M.C., M.C., A.C., and W.C.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 17, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236530
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 92-000059-NA
ROY A. PENNY, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHEILA PENNY,
Respondent.
In the Matter of A.C., M.C., M.C., A.C., and W.C.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236531
LC No. 92-000059-NA
DOUG SOOTSMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SHEILA PENNY,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of A.C., M.C., M.C., A.C., and W.C.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236532
LC No. 92-000059-NA
SHEILA PENNY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ROY A. PENNY, JR., DOUG SOOTSMAN,
ROBERT PALMER, and CHUCK SNYDER,
Respondents.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Markey and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents Roy Penny, Sheila Penny, and Doug Sootsman
appeal as of right from the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to the minor
children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i)1 and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over respondents Sootsman and Roy
Penny once it acquired jurisdiction over the children pursuant to respondent Sheila Penny’s plea
of admission to the initial petition. “[O]nce the family court acquires jurisdiction over the
children, MCR 5.973(A) authorizes the family court to hold a dispositional hearing ‘to determine
measures to be taken . . . against any adult . . . .’” In re CR, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___
(Docket No. 228856, issued February 26, 2002), slip op at 10, quoting MCR 5.973(A) (emphasis
in the original). The FIA was not obligated to allege and demonstrate by a preponderance of
legally admissible evidence that respondents Sootsman and Roy Penny were abusive or
neglectful within the meaning of MCL 712A.2(b) before the court could enter a dispositional
order that would control their conduct, including ultimately terminating their parental rights. Id.,
slip op at 10, 12.
1
Section 19b(3)(c)(i) is applicable only to respondent Sheila Penny.
-2-
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(j) was established by clear and
convincing evidence with respect to respondents Sootsman and Roy Penny. MCR 5.974(I); In re
Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Additionally, the evidence did not show that termination of Sheila Penny’s parental rights
was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich
341, 353-354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
her parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-3-
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.
