IN RE PAMELA HOOPER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of PAMELA HOOPER, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254321
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-327301
PATRICIA ANN HOOPER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the order terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
On appeal, respondent argues that petitioner failed to present clear and convincing
evidence in support of the statutory grounds for termination, and that termination was not in the
best interest of the child.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner bears the burden of proving at least one ground
for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner
has presented clear and convincing evidence that persuades the court that a ground for
termination is established, termination of parental rights is mandatory unless the court finds that
termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id. at 355-356. Decisions terminating
parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 356.
The petition alleged that respondent failed to provide proper care and custody, that
parental rights to a sibling have been terminated due to neglect or abuse, and that the child was
likely to be harmed if returned to respondent’s custody. MCL 712A.19b(3) provides for
termination when
(g)
The 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.
* * *
-1-
(i)
Parental rights to 1 or more siblings have been terminated due to
serious and chronic neglect or physical or sexual abuse, and prior attempts to
rehabilitate the parents have been unsuccessful.
(j)
There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity
of the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
There is clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of respondent’s
parental rights. The court only needed one statutory ground for termination to support its order.
In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000). There is no question that
respondent’s parental rights to a sibling were terminated for neglect. Respondent argues for a
statutory interpretation that would recognize the passage of time, but there is no language in the
statute putting a time limit on the effect of a prior termination, and no reason for recognizing
such a limit in the instant case. Further, the evidence established by clear and convincing
evidence that the child would be at risk if returned to respondent, who demonstrated no ability to
care for her. Finally, where respondent never had a relationship with the child, there is no
showing that termination would not be in the best interest of the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
