IN RE DANIELLE & ROSEMARIE BAKER MINORS ET AL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of DANIELLE BAKER, ROSEMARIE BAKER and BARBARA BAKER, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED July 25, 2000 Petitioner -Appellee, v No. 224043 Kalamazoo Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 87-000030-na DANNY BAKER and ROSEMARY BAKER, Respondents -Appellants. Before: McDonald, P.J., and Neff and Zahra, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondents appeal as of right the family court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. We review for clear error both the court’s decision that a ground for termination has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and, where appropriate, the court’s decision regarding the child’s best interest. In re Trejo minors, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 112528, issued 07/05/00). Only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights. In re Sours minors, 459 Mich 642, 641; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Terry and Hankston minors, 240 Mich App 14, 21-22; 610 NW2d 563 (2000). We find that the family court did not clearly err in finding that § 19b(3)(g) was established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); Sours, supra at 633. Moreover, although there was evidence that the children were bonded to their parents, the family court did not clearly err in determining that termination of respondents’ parental rights was in the children’s best interest. MCL 712A19b(5); MSA 27.3178 (598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, supra. Affirmed. -1­ /s/ Gary R. McDonald /s/ Janet T. Neff /s/ Brian K. Zahra -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.