IN RE GARRISON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of KIMBERLY JEAN GARRISON,
KARLA SUE GARRISON, KRYSTAL LYNN
GARRISON, and WILLIAM GARRISON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 3, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 203472
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 90-285608
WILLIAM GLENN GARRISON, II,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARY CATHERINE S. GARRISON,
Respondent.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 203648
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 90-285608
MARY CATHERINE GARRISON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
WILLIAM GARRISON,
-1
Respondent.
-2
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Fitzgerald and M.G. Harrison*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In Docket No. 203472, respondent William Garrison appeals as of right from the juvenile court
order terminating his parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). In Docket No. 203648, respondent Mary Garrison appeals as of
right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (ii), (c)(i), (g), (i) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i) and (ii), (c)(i), (g),
(i) and (j). We affirm. These consolidated appeals have been decide without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that at least one of the statutory grounds for
termination was established by clear and convincing evidence for each respondent. In re Hall-Smith,
222 Mich App 470; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Contrary to respondent William Garrison’s argument,
the record does not demonstrate that the juvenile court imputed respondent Mary Garrison’s conduct to
him. Further, we do not find that the juvenile court’s ultimate decision to terminate parental rights was
clearly erroneous. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, supra.
We also find no merit in the respondent Mary Garrison’s argument that the juvenile court
focused strictly on the prior termination proceeding for her older children in finding statutory grounds for
terminating her parental rights to the children at issue in the instant case. Although the court found that
she was not successfully rehabilitated, it is clear that the court considered the dispositional information
on her efforts to comply with the treatment plan for this case when making that finding. We are not
persuaded that the juvenile court clearly erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that respondent
Mary Garrison was not successfully rehabilitated or in determining that statutory grounds for termination
were proven. In re Hall-Smith, supra; In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582; 528 NW2d 799 (1995).
Further, we are not persuaded that the juvenile court’s decision was barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel. See Horn v Dep’t of Corrections, 216 Mich App 58, 62; 548 NW2d 660 (1996).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael G. Harrison
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-3
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.
