IN RE MARY LOUISE CIERRA HOPE PORTER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MARY LOUISE CIERRA
HOPE PORTER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 4, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 222059
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-356206
SHANNA JEANETTE PORTER,
Respondent-Appellant
and
LEVERN MASSEY,
Respondent-Not Participating.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Sawyer and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the termination of her parental rights to the minor child pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
A two-prong test applies to a family court’s decision to terminate parental rights. First, the
court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination set forth in MCL 712A.19b;
MSA 27.3178(598.19b) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jackson, 199 Mich
App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). This Court reviews the findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard. MCR 5.974(I); Jackson, supra. Once a statutory ground for termination has
been met by clear and convincing evidence, the court must terminate parental rights unless “there exists
clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interest.” In re Trejo,
___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 112528, issued 7/5/00), slip op p 14; see also
-1
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5). The trial court’s ultimate decision regarding
termination is reviewed in its entirety for clear error. In re Trejo, supra.
After carefully reviewing the record, we are not persuaded that the family court clearly erred in
finding that subsections (3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence and that
it was in the best interests of the child to terminate the parental rights. Accordingly, we find no clear
error in the trial court’s decision to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
