IN RE REBECCA LYNNE HART MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of REBECCA LYNNE HART,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255883
Alpena Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-005499-NA
ROBERT NELSON HART, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANGELIA RANDALL, a/k/a ANGELIA ASAY,
Respondent.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Robert Nelson Hart, Jr., (respondent), appeals by delayed leave
granted from the trial court order terminating his parental rights to the minor child under MCL
712A.19b(3)(g) and (m). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520
(1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence established that
respondent had significant mental health issues, which required numerous hospital stays and
psychotropic medications, and serious physical problems, which had led to many
hospitalizations. Contrary to respondent’s argument, the trial court appropriately relied upon a
psychological evaluation of respondent that indicated he was unable to care for Rebecca because
he was “so preoccupied with his own emotional needs and disabled physically.” See In re
Johnson, 142 Mich App 764, 766; 371 NW2d 446 (1985). Moreover, respondent was
incarcerated at the time of the termination hearing for selling his prescription pain medication
and would remain incarcerated for at least another year. Furthermore, it was undisputed that
-1-
respondent voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to another child in Utah after a
termination petition had been filed.
With respect to the best interests issue, despite comments quoted by respondent, it is clear
from the record that the trial court applied the appropriate standard and did not impermissibly
place the burden of producing evidence on respondent. Further, although there was evidence that
respondent and Rebecca were bonded, the evidence did not show that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the child. MCL 712A.19b(5);
In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
