IN RE JUSTIN SAMUEL NORWOOD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.S.N., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 17, 2003
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 241301
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-044500-NA
ADRIAN NORWOOD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARRISE HALL,
Respondent.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent claims an appeal from the trial court’s order terminating his parental rights to
his child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i) and (ii), (g), (h), and (j).1 We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more
statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from
evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial
court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id., 356-357.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Charrise Hall, the
mother of J.S.N. Hall appealed the order (Docket No. 241403). In an order entered on July 1,
2002, this Court dismissed the appeal as untimely.
-1-
We hold the trial court erred in finding that petitioner established by clear and convincing
evidence that termination of respondent’s parental rights was proper under MCL 712A.19b(3)(h)
(imprisonment). The record fails to indicate that respondent was ever provided with notice
regarding this ground and the petition was never amended to allege it.
However, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was warranted on the grounds of desertion, MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), that the
conditions that led to adjudication and other conditions continued to exist and were not likely to
be rectified within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii)2, that respondent failed to
provide proper care or custody for the child, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and that the child would
likely be harmed if placed in respondent’s custody, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not
show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
See MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
2
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) was never pled. However, respondent challenged only the trial court’s
finding that termination was warranted pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(h).
-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.
