IN RE JESSA YVONNE LINTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JESSA YVONNE LINTON,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250647
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-507271-NA
AMBER CHRISTIE LINTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JEREMY JONES,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Markey and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from the trial court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(j) was established by clear and
convincing evidence.1 MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence established that the child
would likely be emotionally harmed if returned to the home of respondent-appellant in light of
respondent-appellant’s reaction to the child’s allegations that respondent-appellant’s live-in
boyfriend sexually abused her. Although respondent-appellant believed that the child fabricated
the allegation, she still lived with the boyfriend at the time of the termination trial. She did not
believe that the boyfriend posed a threat to the child, and she acknowledged that she had called
1
We need not address the trial court’s findings with respect to § 19b(3)(g) because only one
statutory ground is needed to support termination of parental rights.
-1-
the child a liar during supervised parenting time. Given the circumstances, the trial court did not
clearly err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights without offering her additional
services to reunify the family. Further, there were no violations of respondent-appellant’s due
process rights because the termination of her parental rights was supported by clear and
convincing evidence. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In the Matter of
Render, 145 Mich App 344, 347-348; 377 NW2d 421 (1985).
Finally, 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).
We affirm.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
