IN RE NATHANIEL JAMES MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NATHANIEL JAMES and
AMANDA JAMES, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 8, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 203009
Genesee Juvenile Court
LC No. 88-079158 NA
SHEILA JAMES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LEEVAN HAYMAN and DAVID PEARSON,
Respondents.
Before: Neff, P.J, and White and D. A. Teeple,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (c)(ii) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i),
(c)(ii) and (g). We affirm.1
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Furthermore, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental
rights was not clearly in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5);
In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did
not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Respondent-appellant's assertions that the juvenile court relied on “inadmissible hearsay
evidence” and that the evidence was insufficient because petitioner called only one witness at the
termination hearing are waived because respondent-appellant failed to sufficiently argue these claims in
her brief and failed to cite any legal authority in support these claims. In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474,
477; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). In any event, the claims are without merit because the caseworker who
testified at the hearing had been involved in the case for over three years and personally worked with
respondent and the children, and because documentary evidence was admitted, without objection,
substantiating respondent’s drug use and criminal history.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Donald A. Teeple
1
The respondent fathers of the minor children, Leevan Hayman and David Pearson, have not appealed
the termination of their parental rights.
-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.
