IN RE KYLE ALLEN KIDD; MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of KYLE ALLEN KIDD and DAVID BRIAN KROWL, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 28, 2000 Petitioner-Appellee, v SANDRA JUNE CASTILLO, a/k/a SANDRA JUNE KIDD, a/k/a SANDRA JUNE KROWL, No. 218515 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-362278 Respondent-Appellant, and ALVIN KIDD and DAVID BRIAN KROWL, SR., Respondents. In the Matter of KYLE ALLEN KIDD, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 218790 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-362278 ALVIN R. KIDD, Respondent-Appellant, and -1­ -2­ SANDRA JUNE CASTILLO, a/k/a SANDRA JUNE KIDD, a/k/a SANDRA JUNE KROWL, and DAVID BRIAN KROWL, SR., Respondents. Before: Collins, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondents-appellants Sandra June Krowl and Alvin Kidd appeal as of right the termination of their parental rights to Kyle Allen Kidd pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. In Docket No. 218515, the family court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were both established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Krowl. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998), we need not decide whether termination of respondent Krowl’s parental rights was also warranted under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii) and (j). Because respondent Krowl 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), the family court did not err in terminating her parental rights to the child. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). In Docket No. 218790, the family court did not clearly err in finding that §19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Kidd. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, supra. Because only one statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental rights, In re Huisman, supra, we need not decide whether termination of respondent Kidd’s parental rights was also warranted under §§ 19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i) and (j). Because respondent Kidd 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), the family court did not err in terminating his parental rights to the child. In re Hall-Smith, supra. Affirmed. /s/ Jeffrey G. Collins /s/ Janet T. Neff /s/ Michael R. Smolenski -3­

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.