IN RE JONES/HAWKINS & SMITH MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.J., C.J., Y.H., and S.S., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 26, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235768
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-068800-NA
SHEILA DARLING,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GALEN PEREZ HAWKINS and SEAN SMITH,
Respondents.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D. P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, because at least one statutory ground for termination was
established, the trial court was required to terminate respondent’s parental rights unless the trial
court found that termination was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 364-365; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Based on the evidence presented, the
trial court’s finding regarding the child’s best interests was not clearly erroneous. Trejo, supra.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the
children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
