IN RE PRICE & COX MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BNP, DP, PLC, and HTC, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 19, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 224657
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-000072-NA
CATHERINE PRICE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JERONE EDWARDS and TERRANCE COX,
Respondents.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Whitbeck and J. L. Martlew*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(j).
We affirm.
Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the family court did not clearly err
in finding that the statutory ground for termination was established by clear and convincing
evidence.1 Subsection (j) requires a trial court to terminate a parent’s parental rights if there is
clear and convincing evidence that the children will be harmed if returned to the parent’s home.
Respondent-appellant’s history of anger and emotional problems, as well as a pattern of dating
1
MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
abusive men, clearly poses a risk of harm to her children. While she made some progress in
therapy, there is no evidence that this progress is substantial or permanent.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests.2 Contrary to respondent-appellant’s
argument, the best interest provision of subsection 19b(5) does not impose a burden of proof on
petitioner.3 Even if the family court erroneously applied the best interest standard as explained in
In re Hall-Smith,4 the family court’ s remarks make clear that it found no evidence on the record
as a whole that indicated that termination was against the children’s best interests. Thus, even if
the family court technically erred in referring to respondent-appellant’s burden of proof on this
issue, the error was harmless because the family court’s findings fit the clarified best interest
factors.5
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jeffrey L. Martlew
2
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 352; 612
NW2d 407 (2000).
3
Trejo, supra at 352-354.
4
In Re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
5
See Trejo, supra.
-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.
