IN RE CHILDERS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELISE TALIBAH CHILDERS,
JOSEPH DANIEL CHILDERS, and REBEKAH
ANN CHILDERS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 27, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225903
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-265326
MARY LOUISE TITUS CHILDERS,
Respondent,
and
GEORGE JEFFRY CHILDERS,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of ELISE TALIBAH CHILDERS,
JOSEPH DANIEL CHILDERS, and REBEKAH
ANN CHILDERS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 225933
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-265326
MARY LOUISE TITUS CHILDERS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
-1-
GEORGE JEFFRY CHILDERS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SARAH MARIE CHILDERS,
CHRISTINA EVE CHILDERS, and GEORGE
PERRY CHILDERS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 229409
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-265326
MARY LOUISE TITUS CHILDERS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GEORGE JEFFRY CHILDERS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of SARAH MARIE CHILDERS,
CHRISTINA EVE CHILDERS, GEORGE PERRY
CHILDERS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 229530
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 87-265326
GEORGE JEFFRY CHILDERS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MARY LOUISE TITUS CHILDERS,
-2-
Respondent.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hood and Griffin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from the family court orders
terminating their parental rights to minors Elise, Rebekah, and Joseph under MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), and (j), and to minors Sarah, Christina, and George under MCL
712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (g), (i), (j) and (l). We affirm. This case is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the family court did not err in terminating
respondents’ parental rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
-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.
