IN RE HENDERSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LASHANNA MARIA
HENDERSON
and
CYNTORIA
NASHAY
HENDERSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 3, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
MICHAEL SIMMONS,
No. 212858
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-337483
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RAINY SALON HENDERSON, RAYMOND
TUCKER and MARIO TAYLOR,
Respondents.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Smolenski and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating his parental
rights to LaShanna Maria Henderson under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g).
The family court order also terminates the parental rights of respondents Rainy Salon Henderson,
Raymond Tucker and Mario Taylor, who are not parties to this appeal. We affirm the termination order
as modified.
Under MCR 5.974(B)(2), a “respondent” in a termination of parental rights proceeding
includes the father of a child as defined by MCR 5.903(A)(4). Respondent-appellant does not fit any
of the definitions of “father” listed in MCR 5.903(A)(4). Respondent-appellant was not named in the
petition to terminate parental rights and petitioners did not request that his parental rights be terminated.
The court found that respondent Raymond Tucker was the putative father of the child. Moreover,
following a hearing pursuant to MCR 5.921(D)(2)(b), the trial court specifically determined that
respondent-appellant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was the natural
father of the minor child. Under these circumstances, respondent did not have any parental rights to
terminate. See In re Gillespie, 197 Mich App 440; 496 NW2d 309 (1992). Accordingly, we direct
that respondent-appellant’s name be stricken from the order terminating parental rights. The order is
affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
