IN RE BANKS & BAXTER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of NICOLE CARNELL, JUSTIN
BANKS, and NICKOLIS BAXTER, a/k/a
NICOLAS BAXTER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 11, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212628
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 93-000016 NA
SUSAN BAXTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HOWARD BAXTER and GILBERTO TUDON,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JUSTIN BANKS and NICKOLIS
BAXTER, a/k/a NICOLAS BAXTER, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 212640
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 93-000016 NA
HOWARD BAXTER,
-1
Respondent-Appellant,
and
SUSAN BAXTER,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 212628, respondent Susan Baxter appeals as of right from the family court
order terminating her parental rights to Nicole Carnell, Justin Banks and Nickolis Baxter pursuant to
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). In Docket No. 212640,
respondent Howard Baxter appeals as of right the termination of his parental rights to Justin and
Nickolis pursuant to the same statutory grounds. We affirm.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were established by
clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Susan Baxter and that § 19b(3)(g) was
established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Howard Baxter.1 MCR
5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondents failed to
show that termination of their 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 family court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the
children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
1
Having found that § 19b(3)(g) was established with respect to Howard Baxter, we need not decide
whether § 19b(3)(c)(i) was also established. In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584
NW2d 349 (1998).
-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.