IN THE MATTER OF J. RUSSELL, MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
_______________________________________
UNPUBLISHED
June 10, 2010
In the Matter of J. RUSSELL, Minor.
_______________________________________
No.
295339
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-003098-NA
Before: OWENS, P.J., and O’CONNELL and TALBOT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Jessica Lockwood appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (j), and (l). We affirm.
On appeal, respondent argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights
under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j). It is well established that only one statutory ground for termination
need be proven to warrant termination. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 360; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Because respondent does not challenge the trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights
under § 19b(3)(l), she is not entitled to reversal of the order terminating her parental rights.
Where a respondent does not challenge a trial court’s determination regarding one or more of
several statutory grounds for termination, this Court may assume that the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that the unchallenged grounds were 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 at 353. Further, an appellant’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).
Regardless, given the evidence of respondent’s unresolved problems with substance
abuse and domestic violence, and the undisputed evidence that respondent’s parental rights to
another child were previously terminated as a result of proceedings initiated under MCL
712A.2(b), the trial court did not clearly err in finding that all three statutory grounds for
termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462
Mich at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-1-
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.
