IN RE BRITTANY & BRANDON GARNER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BLG and BLG, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 15, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235505
Muskegon Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-028743-NA
MARCIA RENEE TYLER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
BRIAN GARNER,
Respondent.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Marcia Tyler appeals as of right the order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children. We affirm.
A petition was filed alleging that the children’s home was an unfit place for them to live
due to physical abuse suffered at the hands of respondent-appellant, that respondent-appellant
failed to provide proper care and custody, and that there was a reasonable likelihood that the
children would be harmed if returned to the home of the parents. The court found that each of
the statutory grounds was established by clear and convincing evidence, and that there was no
evidence rebutting the presumption that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best
interests. On appeal, respondent-appellant argues that the court clearly erred in failing to find
that the termination was clearly not in the children’s best interests.
Under MCL 712A.19b(3), the petitioner for the termination of parental rights bears the
burden of proving at least one ground for termination. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350;
617 NW2d 407 (2000). Once the petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that
persuades the court that a ground for termination is established, termination of parental rights is
-1-
mandatory unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. Id.,
355-356. Decisions terminating parental rights are reviewed for clear error. Id., 356.
Respondent-appellant has failed to identify any evidence that would support a showing
that the termination was not in the children’s best interests. Respondent-appellant had a
continuing substance abuse problem, and was serving a prison sentence at the time of the
hearing. She was imprisoned for a significant portion of the children’s lives, and failed to
provide proper care when she was not in prison. The court did not clearly err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
We affirm.
/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.
