IN RE ADAM; ANGEL; RACHEL; MICHAEL DELBOSQUE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ADAM DELBOSQUE, ANGEL
DELBOSQUE, RACHEL DELBOSQUE, and
MICHAEL DELBOSQUE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 18, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 207810
Roscommon Juvenile Court
LC No. 96-009064 NA
GLORIA K. DELBOSQUE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the
minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm.
The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445
NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent failed to show that termination of her parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re
Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not
err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.1
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-1
1
We note that respondent’s argument that “no evidence was presented” to support the trial court’s
finding that termination was in the children’s best interests is misplaced. Pursuant to In re Hall-Smith,
supra, the burden of coming forward with evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best
interests is on the respondent. In any event, the evidence clearly shows that termination was in the
children’s best interests.
-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.