IN RE DESTINY & HANNAH DEWITT MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DESTINY and HANNAH DEWITT,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 21, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 220021
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-024719-NA
KATHRYN SEVERSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of DESTINY and HANNAH DEWITT,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 221767
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-024719-NA
MICHAEL DEWITT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J. and Fitzgerald and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
-1
In Docket No. 220021, respondent Kathryn Severson appeals by right from the family court’s
order terminating her parental rights to two minor children. In Docket No. 221767, respondent
Michael Dewitt appeals by right from the same order, which also terminated his parental rights to the
children. We affirm both cases.
Although the termination petition cited three different statutory bases for termination, the trial
court relied primarily on MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). We disagree that
the court erred by finding that this basis for termination was established by clear and convincing
evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Because only
one statutory basis is required in order to terminate parental rights, In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372,
384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998), we need not decide whether termination was also proper under the
additional grounds listed in the termination petition. Moreover, respondents failed to show that
termination of their 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). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights.
Both cases are affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
