IN RE CLAIBORNE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LA-TACHIA JOI CLAIBORNE,
TODD ROBERT CLAIBORNE, JR., and TRENAE
RENEE CLAIBORNE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 4, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219549
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-012464-NA
TODD CLAIBORNE, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CONSUELO DAVIS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of LA-TACHIA JOI CLAIBORNE,
TODD ROBERT CLAIBORNE, JR., and TRENAE
RENEE CLAIBORNE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219613
Monroe Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-012464-NA
CONSUELO DAVIS,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1
and
TODD CLAIBORNE, SR.,
Respondent.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents Todd Claiborne, Sr., and Consuelo Davis appeal as
of right from the family court’s order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL
712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (h) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (h) and (j).1
We affirm.
Respondent Claiborne argues that the family court did not have jurisdiction over the matter
because the initial preliminary hearing was not conducted within twenty-four hours after the children
were taken into custody as required by MCR 5.965(A). We disagree. The court conducted the
hearing at a later time and authorized the petition. Respondent Claiborne does not challenge the
decision to exercise jurisdiction, only the timing of the hearing. We conclude that any error in this regard
was merely a procedural irregularity that did not affect the court’s otherwise valid subject matter
jurisdiction, based on the type of case, the allegations in the complaint, and the finding of probable cause
to believe that the allegations were true. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 433-436; 505 NW2d 834
(1993).
Only one statutory ground is required to terminate parental rights. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich
App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1992). Subsection 19b(5) of the statute mandates termination once
petitioner establishes at least one ground for termination, unless the court finds on the whole record that
termination is clearly not in the child’s best interest. In re Trejo Minors, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d
___ (Docket No. 112528, issued 7/5/00), slip op p 18.
Here, the family court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were established
by clear and convincing evidence as to both respondents. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989), or in concluding that termination of their parental rights was in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), In re Trejo Minors, supra
at 17. Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children and
denying respondent Davis’ motion for reconsideration Id.
Affirmed.
-2
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
1
Only respondent Claiborne’s parental rights were terminated under § 19b(3)(a)(ii).
-3
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.
