IN RE JESSICA RENEE WILLIAMS; MINOR

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of JESSICA RENEE WILLIAMS, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 206197 Wayne Juvenile Court LC No. 95-325728 RUBY WILLIAMS, Respondent-Appellant, and LEON WILLIAMS, Respondent. Before: Young, Jr., P.J., and Wahls and Jansen, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), (h) and (j). We affirm. We consider abandoned respondent-appellant’s argument that the juvenile court erred in failing to order an adjournment because the argument lacks citation to supporting authority and is not included in the statement of questions presented. See Meagher v McNeely & Lincoln, Inc, 212 Mich App 154, 156; 536 NW2d 851 (1995); In re Toler, 193 Mich App 474, 477; 484 NW2d 672 (1992). Regardless, the record does not indicate that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying an adjournment. In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 28; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). -1­ With regard to the termination decision itself, respondent-appellant only challenges the termination of her parental rights under § 19b(3)(h). Because only one statutory ground is necessary to terminate parental rights and because respondent-appellant does not challenge the termination of her parental rights under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j), respondent-appellant is not entitled to appellate relief on this issue. Roberts & Son Contracting, Inc v North Oakland Development Corp, 163 Mich App 109, 113; 413 NW2d 744 (1987). In any event, 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). Further, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the child’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 to the child. Affirmed. /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. /s/ Myron H. Wahls /s/ Kathleen Jansen -2­