IN RE BOYD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TANIYAH BOYD and
SAMIYAH BOYD, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 10, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291485
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-754446-NA
REGINA DIANE BOYD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Stephens, P.J., and Cavanagh and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j). We affirm.
Respondent argues that the trial court erred in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j) were both
established by clear and convincing evidence. However, a trial court need only find “clear and
convincing evidence of one statutory ground to support its termination order,” In re Powers, 244
Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000), and respondent does not challenge the trial court’s
determination regarding § 19b(3)(i). Where a respondent does not challenge the trial court’s
determination regarding one or more of several statutory grounds, this Court may assume that the
trial court did not clearly err in finding that the unchallenged ground was proven by clear and
convincing evidence. See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich App 92, 98-99; 585 NW2d 326 (1998),
overruled in part on other grounds by In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Further, a respondent’s failure to address an issue that must necessarily be reached to reverse the
trial court precludes appellate relief. City of Riverview v Sibley Limestone, 270 Mich App 627,
638; 716 NW2d 615 (2006). Thus, respondents’ failure to address the trial court’s decision with
respect to § 19b(3)(i) precludes relief with respect to the existence of a statutory ground for
termination.
Further, considering the multiple prior terminations of parental rights to the children’s
siblings, the evidence that respondent’s substance abuse problem had not yet been resolved, and
that the children were removed from respondent’s custody shortly after birth, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s
best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/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.
