IN RE WOOTEN MINORSAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NICHOLAS NATHANIEL
WOOTEN, KAYLA EMILDA DIANA WOOTEN,
and IEASHA BRITINE WOOTEN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
June 5, 1998
Ingham Juvenile Court
LC No. 00004322
TONIA G. WOOTEN,
Before: Wahls, P.J., and Jansen and Gage, JJ.
Respondent appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g) and
(j). We affirm.
Respondent’s sole argument is that the proofs presented by the petitioner were not clear and
convincing as required by MCL 712A.19b(3); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3). However, respondent’s
discussion of this issue is directed only at § 19b(3)(g). Because only one statutory ground for
termination is required, respondent’s failure to specifically address §§ 19(b)(3)(c)(i) and (j) precludes
relief. See generally Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163
Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987) (failure to address an issue, which necessarily must be
reached, precludes appellate relief); cf. In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 592-593; 528 NW2d 799
(1995). In any event, the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that all three 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). Further, while MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5) is
not addressed by respondent, we note that respondent failed to show that termination of her parental
rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children. Id.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Hilda R. Gage