IN RE HARTLEY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DJH and DKH, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 22, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231536
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-012004
DIANE HARTLEY BLANKS,
Respondent-Appellant
and
JAMES R. CAMERON and JARVARIOUS
JONES,
Respondents.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Diane Hartley Blanks (respondent) appeals as of right from the
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(g) and (j);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). We affirm.
In order to terminate parental rights, the circuit court must find that at least one of the
statutory grounds for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re Jackson,
199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). Once a statutory ground is established,
termination of parental rights is mandatory unless the court finds that termination clearly is not in
the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the family court’s findings of fact for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999).
Clear and convincing evidence supported termination in this case under both statutory
subsections. Although the record shows that respondent and her children share a close bond, the
-1-
record also shows that respondent continued to have contact with and marry her boyfriend after
she knew of his violent tendencies, after she knew that he likely injured her children, and after
the court ordered that he have no contact with respondent’s children. Although respondent later
divorced her husband, trial testimony indicated that she continued to be involved with him.
While respondent testified that she was no longer involved with her ex-husband and had no
intention of resuming the relationship, the court’s findings indicate that it did not credit
respondent’s testimony. Credibility determinations are for the trier of fact, In re Miller, 433
Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989), and we find nothing in the record to suggest that the trial
court clearly erred in this regard.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in concluding that respondent failed
to provide proper care or custody for her children, that there was no expectation that she would
be able to do so within a reasonable time, and that there was a reasonable likelihood the children
would be harmed if returned to respondent.
MCL 712A.19b(g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g) and (j). Further, the evidence did not establish that termination of
respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
