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 FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED May 11, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 212628 Branch Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 93-000016 NA SUSAN BAXTER, Respondent-Appellant, and HOWARD BAXTER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.