IN RE PORTMAN/REDDEN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of LORNA PAULETTE PORTMAN,
DAVID ALEXANDER PORTMAN,
KIMBERLYNN NICHOLE PORTMAN, AARON
TYRONE PORTMAN, PRENTICE STEPHEN
REDDEN, and MARIE ANNIE PORTMAN,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 29, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 232377
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377123
KIMBERLY YOLAND PORTMAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PAUL TYRONE BELL, SR., and PIERRE
REDDEN,
Respondents.
In the Matter of LORNA PAULETTE PORTMAN,
DAVID ALEXANDER PORTMAN,
KIMBERLYNN NICHOLE PORTMAN, AARON
TYRONE PORTMAN, PRENTICE STEPHEN
REDDEN, and MARIE ANNIE PORTMAN,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
-1-
v
No. 232523
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-377123
PAUL TYRONE BELL,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
KIMBERLY YOLAND PORTMAN and PIERRE
REDDEN,
Respondents.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant mother appeals as of right from the
trial court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children, Prentice, Lorna, Marie,
David and Kimberlynn under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (j) and to Aaron under §§ 19b(3)(g)
and (i). Respondent-father appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his parental
rights to the minor children, Lorna, Marie, David and Kimberlynn under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (j)
and to Aaron under §§ 19b(3)(g) and (i). We affirm. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination of
respondent-appellant mother and respondent-appellant father’s parental rights 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 either respondent-appellant’s
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo,
462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant mother’s parental rights to her children and respondent-appellant father’s
parental rights to his children.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
