IN RE MARQUITA HAYWOOD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.H. and R.S., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240274
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000260-NA
MARC HAYWOOD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMEY SWIFT and JOHN SWIFT,
Respondents.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Haywood appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating his
parental rights to M.H. pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The court may order
termination upon finding that at least one statutory ground for termination has been proved by
clear and convincing evidence, In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999), and
petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted under
section 19b(3)(g). Petitioner was not required to prove that respondent would neglect his child
for the long-term future as held in Fritts v Krugh, 354 Mich 97, 114; 92 NW2d 604 (1958),
overruled on other grounds by In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993). That
case predates the enactment of section 19b(3) which sets forth the criteria for termination.
Although respondent was unable to be physically present for the hearing, he waived any
error by consenting to the court’s solution for handling his physical absence. People v Carter,
462 Mich 206, 216; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
