IN RE JAMAL HEATH MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.H., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 24, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 288183
Calhoun Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 03-002973-NA
KARCEY M. ROBINSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DANIEL MOSLEY,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Fort Hood and Davis, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Karcey Robinson appeals as of right from a circuit court order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(i) and/or (l). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(l) was established by clear and
convincing legally admissible evidence. MCR 3.977(E); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). It was undisputed that the child’s siblings were the subjects of child
protective proceedings and that those proceedings resulted in the termination of respondent’s
parental rights to each child. Respondent does not dispute this, but contends that proof of
something more than a prior termination should be required before termination can be ordered
under § 19b(3)(l). We disagree.
Subsection 19b(3)(l) authorizes termination upon clear and convincing evidence that (1)
the child’s sibling(s) came under the court’s jurisdiction as a result of child protective
proceedings instituted under MCL 712A.2(b), and (2) those proceedings resulted in the
termination of the parent’s parental rights. Nothing more, such as proof of future neglect or an
opportunity for rehabilitation, is required. Plain and unambiguous statutory language is to be
enforced as written, Macomb Co Prosecutor v Murphy, 464 Mich 149, 158; 627 NW2d 247
-1-
(2001), and a court cannot read into a statute anything “that is not within the manifest intent of
the Legislature as gathered from the act itself.” In re S R, 229 Mich App 310, 314; 581 NW2d
291 (1998). Further, undisputed proof of a prior involuntary termination only establishes that a
statutory ground for termination exists, but does not, in and of itself, enable the court to order
termination. The court must also find that termination is in the child’s best interests before it can
order termination of parental rights. MCL 712A.19b(5). The court so found in this case and
respondent does not challenge that finding on appeal. Therefore, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-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.
