IN RE SALAZAR/CABRERA/MUNOZ MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of GUADALUPE R. SALAZAR, CARLOS OMAR CABRERA, DANEILA L. CABRERA, and BLANCA ESTELA MUNOZ, a/k/a BLANCA ESTELA FLORES, a/k/a BLANCA ESTELA SALAZAR, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 17, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v ESTELA MARIE JIMENEZ, a/k/a ESTELA MARIE FLORES, No. 213013 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 95-324077 Respondent-Appellant, and ROBERT SALAZAR and CARLOS CABRERA, SR., Respondents. Before: Markman, P.J., and Saad and P.D. Houk,* JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right a family court order terminating her parental rights to her children, Daneila and Blanca, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ The family 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-appellant 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 family court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children. Id. Affirmed. /s/ Stephen J. Markman /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Peter D. Houk -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.