IN RE LEWIS-ROBY/ROBY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of S.L.L.-R. and P.D.K.L.R., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235278
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-325157
DEREK LARRY LEWIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RENEE LYNN ROBY,
Respondent.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Griffin and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant asserts that the trial court “abuse[d] its discretion” in terminating
his parental rights to the minor children. However, the applicable standard of review requires
that we determine whether the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous. MCR 5.974(I); In re
Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
A court may terminate parental rights if “[t]he parent, without regard to intent, fails to
provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent
will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child’s
age.” MCL 712A.19b(3)(g). We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
§ 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459
Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
Because only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights, we find it unnecessary
to determine whether termination was also proper under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (j). Because
respondent-appellant has not sufficiently briefed the question of the children’s best interests
-1-
under MCL 712A.19b(5), we need not consider this issue. First Mich Bank v Bailey, 232 Mich
App 711, 717; 591 NW2d 676 (1998).
Affirmed.1
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
1
We deny petitioner's request for an exceptional issuance of our judgment under MCR
7.215(F)(2).
-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.
