IN RE JACOBY KENTRELL LASTER MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of JACOBY KENTRELL LASTER, Minor. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED October 3, 2000 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 221524 Genesee Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 98-110172-NA VERNETTA LASTER, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Smolenski, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent mother appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor child. We affirm. Respondent mother argues that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory grounds for termination had been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Miller, 182 Mich App 70, 84; 451 NW2d 576 (1990). We disagree. The child’s pediatrician, Lawrence Reynolds, M.D., testified that when the child was approximately one-year-old, the doctor discovered six separate fractures in the boy’s arms and legs. Reynolds unequivocally testified that these fractures were most likely caused by someone jerking and twisting the boy’s extremities. Reynolds also opined that the boy’s tuberous sclerosis had not contributed to the injuries. Respondent mother, the boy’s sole caregiver at the time the injuries were inflicted, offered no explanation for these injuries either during the pendency of the proceedings or to any of the caregivers and social service workers assigned to the case. We conclude that this evidence supports the trial court’s findings that both MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) (parent failed to prevent physical injury to child and there is a reasonable likelihood that child will suffer further injury if placed in parent’s home), and (3)(j) (reasonable likelihood child will be harmed if returned to the parent’s home); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i)(ii) and (j), were established by clear and convincing evidence. -1­ -2­ Affirmed. /s/ Martin M. Doctoroff /s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr. /s/ Michael R. Smolenski -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.