IN RE COATES/GONMAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TIMOTHY ANDREW COATES and
DANTE DIANDRE GONMAN, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 215485
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-347831
DENISE COATES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LLOYD JACKSON,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Zahra and S.L. Pavlich*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 721A.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).
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). We disagree with respondent-appellant’s claim that, based on the testimony of
Stephen West, the family court should have dismissed the termination petition with respect to Timothy
Coates. First, respondent-appellant never requested dismissal as to Timothy. Second, West was not
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
the petitioner in this matter. Third, West explained that his recommendation was based primarily on a
personal belief that Timothy was not likely to be adopted, given his age. It was not based on any
opinion that respondent-appellant was capable of providing proper care and custody for Timothy. On
the contrary, West specifically testified that it was his opinion that respondent-appellant was not able to
provide proper care and custody for either child, and would not be able to do so in the future even with
the services provided. Therefore, the family court did not err by failing to sua sponte dismiss the
termination petition with respect to Timothy.
Respondent-appellant does not contend 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; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Accordingly, the family court did not err in terminating
her parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Scott L. Pavlich
-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.
