IN RE JALEN VASHAWN ROSS; MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Jalen Vashawn Ross, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 7, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219200
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 92-301079
ALLEN WALKER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DARLENE ROSS,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P. J., and Hood and Saad, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental rights. We affirm.
The Family Independence Agency initiated proceedings to terminate respondent’s rights to his
putative son. Respondent appeared at the permanent custody hearing, but refused to acknowledge
paternity. The evidence produced at the hearing showed that respondent had a long-standing substance
abuse problem, that he had neither shown an interest in nor provided support for the child, and that he
had not offered a plan for the child. The evidence also showed that respondent’s parental rights to
another child had been terminated pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). The court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to
terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (l), and (4); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), (i), (l), and (4).
-1
To terminate parental rights, the family court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds
for termination in MCL 712A.19b; MSA 27.3178(598.19b) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re JS and SM, 231 Mich App 92, 97; 585 NW2d 326 (1998). If a statutory ground is
established, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds that to do so would not be 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; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). We review the family court’s findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
The family court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established
by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent received notice of the permanent custody hearing, as
required, MCL 712A.19b(2)(c); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(2)(c); MCR 5.921(B)(2)(c), but failed to
establish paternity when given the opportunity to do so. The evidence showed that respondent, who
had a long history of substance abuse, had neither shown any interest in nor provided any support for
the child. In addition, the evidence showed that respondent’s parental rights to another child had been
terminated pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g).
Respondent failed to present evidence that termination was not in the best interests of the child. HallSmith, supra, 473.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
-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.
