IN RE HURT MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of TAYLOR GIOVANNI HURT and TYANNIA JIOVANNA HURT, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED November 30, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v HERBERT LIDDELL and RAMONITA LASHELLE HURT, Nos. 216470;216516 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 95-101756 NA Respondents-Appellants. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and J. R. Cooper*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right from a family court order terminating their 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. The family court did not abuse its discretion in recognizing Michael Buza as an expert in his field. MRE 702; People v Peebles, 216 Mich App 661, 667; 550 NW2d 589 (1996). Respondent Liddell’s challenge to Dr. Sommerschield’s testimony was not preserved for appeal because he did not object to it at trial on the grounds now asserted. Meagher v Wayne State University, 222 Mich App 700, 724; 565 NW2d 401 (1997). In any event, we are satisfied that respondent Liddell’s challenge to Dr. Sommerschield’s testimony is without merit. The family 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, respondents-appellants failed to show that termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to the children. Id. Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Jessica R. Cooper -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.