IN RE ALISA RAY HEROY MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.R.H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 21, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237318
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000227-NA
TONY HEROY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JENNIFER LYNN DONOHO,
Respondent.
In the Matter of A.R.H., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237414
Cass Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000227-NA
JENNIFER LYNN DONOHO,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TONY HEROY,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Smolenski and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant Jennifer Lynn Donoho appeals by
leave granted and respondent-appellant Tony Heroy appeals as of right from the order dated
September 4, 2001, terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant Heroy argues that the trial court erred in finding sufficient
evidence of statutory grounds to terminate his parental rights. We disagree. The trial court did
not clearly err in finding clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds for termination.
MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293
(1991). The evidence established that Heroy continued to be too unstable, immature and
dependent on others to assume care of the minor child within a reasonable time. He failed to
secure stable employment and continued to rely on his mother for housing, and there was no
indication that these matters were improving.
Heroy also argues that the trial court erred in declining to find that termination was not in
the child’s best interests. When the petitioner establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a
statutory basis for termination exists, the court must order termination of parental rights unless it
finds from evidence on the record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra at 350-351. Heroy fails to explain what evidence showed that
termination was not in the child’s best interests; he merely reiterates his argument that the
evidence was insufficient to establish grounds for termination. This argument therefore fails,
because a party may not merely announce a position and leave it to this Court to discover and
rationalize the basis for the claim. American Transmission, Inc v Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc, 239
Mich App 695, 705; 609 NW2d 607 (2000).
Respondent-appellant Donoho does not argue that the trial court erred in finding
sufficient evidence of statutory grounds for termination. She contends only that the trial court
should have found that the child’s best interests would have been served not by termination of
her parental rights, but by placement with a relative. This issue is not preserved for appellate
review because Donoho failed to raise it before the trial court. Moreover, we find that the
evidence does not show that placement with the named relatives would have been a better option
than termination.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
