IN RE KING/DAVIS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of TANAE LYNETTE KING,
JENERICO L. DAVIS, TWYLA J. DAVIS, JUSTIN
L. DAVIS, TIARRA G. DAVIS,
TANJA G. DAVIS, a/k/a TANJA L. DAVIS,
and JAYLEN L. DAVIS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
February 16, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 210969
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-320839
LINDA GAIL DAVIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JIMMIE LEE KING,
Respondent.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and MacKenzie and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant (hereafter “respondent”) appeals as of right from the family court orders
terminating her parental rights to the minor child, Tanae, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(i), and terminating her parental rights to the remaining minor children under MCL
712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent does not challenge the lower court’s findings regarding the statutory grounds for
termination. Rather, her sole argument on appeal is that “there [wa]s not clear and convincing evidence
that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child[ren].” Once a ground for
-1
termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence, MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5) requires a respondent to put forth evidence that termination is clearly not in the
children’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
Absent any evidence addressing this issue, termination of parental rights is mandatory. Id. We find that
respondent failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best
interests. Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the children.
Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie
/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.
