IN RE BAILEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NICOLE AARON BAILEY,
BRANDON RICHARD BAILEY, and MELANIE
YOUNG BAILEY, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 31, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 205685
Ingham Juvenile Court
LC No. 00004302
SUE ANN BAILEY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD BAILEY,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and MacKenzie and N.O. Holowka*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the juvenile court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case has been decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ruling to admit the child’s statements. In re
Hill, 221 Mich App 683, 696; 562 NW2d 254 (1997); In re Miller, 182 Mich App 70, 80; 451
NW2d 576 (1990). The statements had an adequate indicia of trustworthiness under MCR
5.972(C)(2). In re Brimer, 191 Mich App 401, 405; 478 NW2d 689 (1991). Further, the juvenile
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
court did not clearly err in finding that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination was
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470;
564 NW2d 156 (1997).
We affirm.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/s/ Nick O. Holowka
-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.