IN RE QUANEESHA JONES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Q.J., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238546
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-051600-NA
GEORGE JONES, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KATINA WHITE,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
In making a termination decision, the trial court must engage in a two-step analysis.
First, it must determine if a statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 632; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Second,
if a statutory ground has been established, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless
there exists clear evidence on the whole record that it is not in the child’s best interests to
terminate parental rights. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 603 NW2d 787 (2000).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the opinion of the trial court, and
the parties’ briefs. We are not persuaded that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory
grounds for termination were met and that it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the
parental rights. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in terminating
respondent’s parental rights.
-1-
The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent-appellant’s motion
for adjournment of the termination hearing based on the unavailability of a witness, when the
evidence showed that the witness’s testimony would be cumulative and therefore not material.
MCR 2.503(C)(2); In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993).
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
