IN RE CLEMENTS/BROWN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.C., M.C., M.C. and M.B.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 29, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240654
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-112375-NA
IRVIN LEON BROWN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARCIE SHEREL CLEMENTS,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Brown appeals as of right from a trial court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g), (j), (l) and (n)(i). 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 at least one statutory ground for
termination had been proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438,
450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). The evidence established that respondent’s parental rights to two
other children had been terminated by the court pursuant to child protection proceedings and
therefore, termination was clearly warranted under subsection 19b(3)(l). Respondent claims that
section 19b(3)(l) requires that some evidence must show that the children’s health, safety or
general welfare was at risk; however, he did not brief the merits of this claim or cite any
supporting legal authority. Consequently, the issue is abandoned. Prince v MacDonald, 237
Mich App 186, 197; 602 NW2d 834 (1999). Also, termination was proper under sections
19b(3)(b)(i), (j) and (n)(i). The evidence showed that respondent, who was convicted of seconddegree criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing an unrelated child, later sexually abused a
sibling of the children, yet he denied that the abuse occurred and, according to a psychological
-1-
evaluation, he presented “a very significant risk for future sexual abuse of children.” Given that
evidence, placing the children in respondent’s home or even continuing the parent-child
relationship with respondent would likely harm the children. Further, the trial court did not
clearly err in its determination that the evidence, on the whole record, did not clearly show that
termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
354, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); MCL 712A.19b(5). Therefore, the trial court did not
clearly err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. Trejo, supra at 356-357.
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.
