IN RE HARRIS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of CEDRIC HARRIS, JR., BRIANNA
RENEE HARRIS, and MARIAH SHANTANE
HARRIS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234002
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 94-313903
FRANCINE JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CEDRIC HARRIS,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court
determines that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one
or more statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds
from evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review
the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id., 356-357.
We hold the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination. Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that
respondent could not provide proper care or custody of the children and could not be expected to
-1-
do so within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and it was reasonably likely the children
would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care. MCL 712A.19b(3)(j). It was undisputed that
respondent’s parental rights to three other children had been terminated based on evidence that
those children were physically abused, and that attempts to rehabilitate respondent were
unsuccessful. MCL 712A.19b(3)(i). The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
