IN RE JAMES HESTER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAMES HESTER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 249918
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 01-053301-NA
JAMES PORTER HESTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIDGET ORTEGA,
Respondent.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Meter and Owens, 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)(g) and (h). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant does not contest that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence.1 Instead, respondent-appellant challenges the trial
court’s decision on the grounds that it was contrary to the child’s best interests to terminate his
parental rights because he offered paternal relatives who were willing and able to care for the
child until he was released from prison.2
1
A witness at the termination hearing testified that respondent-appellant was incarcerated at the
time of the termination hearing and would remain incarcerated until 2011.
2
We note the child had been placed with maternal relatives upon entering foster care and
apparently remained in that placement at the time of the termination hearing.
-1-
However, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court was not required to place the child with
relatives instead of terminating parental rights. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 453; 592 NW2d
751 (1999); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 52; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). The evidence
established that the child, approximately three and a half years old at the time of the termination
hearing, needed permanency, and the trial court did not err in providing such permanency
through the termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
