IN RE CATHRON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of SYNQUIS SIMONE CATHRON,
ANDRE DELMAR CATHRON, JR., DE’ ANDRE
CATHRON, and INEZ CATHRON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 7, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 223951
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 90-086075-NA
ANDRE CATHRON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMIE JOHNSON,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Doctoroff and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his minor children
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(h); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(h). We affirm.
In a termination of parental rights case, a trial court must determine whether a statutory ground
for termination exists based on clear and convincing evidence. If so, than MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(5) mandates that the trial court terminate the parent’s rights unless “there exists clear
evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the child’s best interests.” In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Respondent first argues that the trial court had a viable option short of terminating his rights, and
should have allowed his mother (the children’s paternal grandmother) to act as a guardian to the
-1
children. This argument is without merit. Respondent’s mother admitted on the record that she had no
interest in being the children’s legal guardian.
Respondent next argues that the lower court record lacked clear and convincing evidence to
support the order terminating his parental rights. We review for clear error the trial court’s finding that
petitioner proved a statutory ground for termination with clear and convincing evidence. MCR
5.974(I). We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the lower court’s ruling, and the parties’
briefs. Our review did not reveal clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination was not in the
child’s best interests.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
