IN RE BROADNAKX/LASHAWN/BROADNAX MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALONSO BROADNAKX, AUSTIN
SHI
BROADNAKX,
TEONIE
ATARI
BROADNAKX, ANTIAWN J. LASHAWN and
ALIAS TONE BROADNAX, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 17, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
TERRY ANTOINETTE BROADNAKX
ALTONNIE CARRINGTON,
and
Nos. 214465;214612
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-331731
Respondents-Appellants.
Before: Markman, P.J., and Saad and P.D. Houk,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a family court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm. This case is being decided without
oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
In Docket No. 214465, 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; In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Contrary to what respondent Broadnakx argues, there is no
indication in the record that the court improperly considered the children’s best interests, or whether the
children would be better off in a foster or adoptive home, when deciding whether the statutory grounds
for termination were proven. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997); see
also Tallman v Milton, 192 Mich App 606, 615; 482 NW2d 187 (1992). Finally, respondent
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
Broadnakx 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, supra.
In Docket No. 214612, the family court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (j)
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In re Miller, supra. Although the
Clinic for Child Study recommended that respondent Carrington be given more time to demonstrate his
parenting abilities, the caseworkers and the children’s therapist recommended otherwise and we defer
to the trial court’s superior ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses. MCR 2.613. The court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient to satisfy MCL 712A.19b; MSA
27.3178(598.19b); see also MCR 5.974(G).
Accordingly, the family court did not err in terminating respondents’ 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.
