IN RE HUNT MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of EMMA HUNT and MARIAH HUNT, Minors. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2010 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 293506 Muskegon Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 07-036614-NA JESSE NICHOLS, Respondent-Appellant, and SAVANNAH HUNT, Respondent. Before: OWENS, P.J., and SAWYER and O’CONNELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent Jesse Nichols (respondent) appeals as of right the lower court’s order terminating his parental rights to his minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a), (c)(i), (g) and (h).1 We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Respondent argues that the trial court erred when it determined that terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best interests. We disagree. Once a statutory ground for termination of parental rights has been proven, the trial court shall order termination of parental rights if it finds “that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5). We review the trial court’s best interests finding for 1 Respondent-mother Savannah Hunt’s parental rights to these children and to a third child were also terminated in the course of the lower court proceeding. She is not a party to this appeal. -1- clear error. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). “A finding is clearly erroneous [if] although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Deference is accorded to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it. Id.; MCR 2.613(C). The trial court did not clearly err when it determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests. Respondent admitted that he did not have a bond with the children and that they did not even know him. He had provided no past monetary support for them. He had rarely contacted them by letter. In addition, he would be unable to care for them for at least three years because of his ongoing incarceration. Testimony concerning the children’s special needs and their present need for support and permanency also supported the trial court’s decision. Moreover, the nature of respondent’s previous convictions indicates that respondent has his own mental difficulties to work through before he could become an effective parent to the children. Affirmed. /s/ Donald S. Owens /s/ David H. Sawyer /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -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.