IN RE HINKINS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of PRINCETON M. HINKINS,
JASPER K. HINKINS and AMBER J. HINKINS,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 11, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 218529
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 89-275950
JAMES LONG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEBORAH MICHELLE HINKINS, LAMONT
RICHARDSON and ANDRE KING,
Respondents.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Meter and T. G. Hicks*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent James Long (“respondent”) appeals by delayed leave granted from an order
terminating his parental rights to Amber Hinkins pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii),
(c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This
case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Giving deference to the trial court’s superior opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the
witnesses, we conclude that the challenged findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. MCR 5.974(I);
In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). As such, the trial court did not clearly err in
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
finding that statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence.1 Id.
Further, respondent failed to show that termination of his 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 trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the child.2 Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Timothy G. Hicks
1
Petitioner concedes that termination of respondent’s parental rights pursuant to §19b(3)(a)(ii) was
inappropriate, because that subsection applied only to the child’s mother. However, the remaining
statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Because only a
single statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental rights, In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App
47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991), any error in applying § 19b(3)(a)(ii) to respondent was harmless.
2
We note that the trial court in its extensive opinion characterized the children’s (including Amber’s)
behavior, which was the result of sexual and physical abuse perpetrated, and allowed to be perpetrated,
upon them by respondent as “currently worse than anything the court has ever seen in children of this
age.”
-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.
