IN RE WILLIE FREDERICK FARRINGTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of WFF, Minor.
JOHN RUSH AND JOAN RUSH,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2001
Petitioners-Appellees,
v
No. 231471
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-637667-NA
KATHERINE WARD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Sawyer and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant (“respondent”) appeals as of right from the family court’s order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We affirm.
Respondent initially argues that the family court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction
in this case because respondent placed the child in the suitable care and custody of her relatives,
and therefore the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed. We review de novo
questions of subject-matter jurisdiction. Jackson Community College v Dep’t of Treasury, 241
Mich App 673, 678; 621 NW2d 707 (2000). In support of her argument, respondent primarily
relies on the Supreme Court’s equally divided decision in In re Taurus F, 415 Mich 512; 330
NW2d 33 (1982). As an initial matter, we note that this decision was the product of an equally
divided Supreme Court and therefore of “diminished precedential value.” In re Martin, 237
Mich App 253, 258 n 2; 602 NW2d 630 (1999). In any event, after a careful review of the record
we are satisfied that the family court properly assumed subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.
MCL 712A.2(b)(1); In re Ernst, 130 Mich App 657, 663-664; 344 NW2d 39 (1983).
This Court reviews for clear error both the family court’s decision that statutory grounds
for terminating parental rights were proven by clear and convincing evidence and its decision
regarding the child’s best interests. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). The family court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) were established by clear and convincing evidence. Further,
considered in its entirety, the evidence did not show that termination was clearly not in the
-1-
child’s best interests. Thus, we find no clear error in the family court’s decision to terminate
respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
