IN RE CHADI HASSAN BEYDOUN MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CHADI HASSAN BEYDOUN,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 23, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254320
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-383619
REBECCA MARIE DUNN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HASSAN KASSAN BEYDOUN,
Respondent.
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Murray and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to her child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), and (l).1 We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A finding is clearly erroneous
when we are left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake was made. In re JK, 468
Mich 202, 209-210; 661 NW2d 216 (2003). To be clearly erroneous, a decision must be more
than maybe or probably wrong. Sours, supra. If the trial court determines that the petitioner has
proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for
termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from evidence on the whole
record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Hassan Kassan
Beydoun, the child’s legal father. Beydoun has not appealed the order.
-1-
462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s decision regarding
the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner proved by clear and convincing
evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. The uncontradicted evidence showed that respondent’s parental rights to three
other children had been terminated as a result of proceedings under MCL 712A.2(b). Thus, the
trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(l).2 Furthermore, no evidence demonstrated that termination
of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
2
The trial court also found that termination of respondent’s parental rights was warranted under
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j). Respondent’s arguments regarding those grounds are
irrelevant in light of the fact that termination was warranted under MCL 712A.19b(3)(l).
-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.
