IN RE MCCLAIN/NEALY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.A.M. and H.M.M., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236032
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 86-252279
DONALD JONES II,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DIONE DARSELL MCCLAIN and STEPHEN
TEREZ BELLEFANT,
Respondents.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D.P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor child, A.A.M., under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (h), (g) and (j).1 We
affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
As an initial matter, respondent-appellant’s contention that he was not provided notice
that the petition seeking termination of the mother’s parental rights also sought termination of his
parental rights is without merit. Although the petition failed to specifically request that his rights
be terminated, such defect was technical and did not erode the fact of the actual notice because
the attached allegations provided ample notice of the proofs he would need to overcome
termination. In re Perry, 193 Mich App 648, 651; 484 NW2d 768 (1992); In re Slis, 144 Mich
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
1
Respondent-appellant does not challenge the termination of his parental rights to the child,
H.M.M.
-1-
App 678, 684; 375 NW2d 788 (1985). Furthermore, he was represented by counsel at the
preliminary hearing.
This Court reviews factual findings in termination of parental rights proceedings under
the clearly erroneous standard. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161
(1989). The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. Because termination of respondentappellant's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), and (h) was supported by clear
and convincing evidence and only one statutory ground for termination must be established in
order to terminate parental rights, this Court need not decide whether termination was also
proper under §19b(3)(j). In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Furthermore, considered in its entirety, the evidence did not show that termination was
clearly contrary to the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
