IN RE ELLIOT DEAN CHENAULT MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ELLIOTT DEAN CHENAULT,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 234083
Oakland Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-626053-NA
HERMAN CHENAULT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TAMMY NOLIN,
Respondent.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Zahra and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant (“respondent”) appeals by right from the family court’s order
terminating his parental rights to a minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) (“[t]he parent,
without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no
reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a
reasonable time considering the child’s age”), MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(h) (“[t]he parent is
imprisoned for such a period that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period
exceeding 2 years, and the parent has not provided for the child’s proper care and custody, and
there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody
within a reasonable time considering the child’s age”), and MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) (“[t]here is a
reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child’s parent, that the child will
be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent”). We affirm.
This Court reviews for clear error a family court’s finding that a statutory basis for
termination has been met. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Once a statutory basis has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, the
-1-
court must terminate parental rights unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the
best interests of the child. Trejo, supra at 344, 355. A court’s finding on the best interests prong
is also reviewed by this Court for clear error. Id. at 356-357, 365.
In his sole issue on appeal, respondent challenges the family court’s finding regarding the
best interests of the child. In light of respondent’s incarceration, criminal history, and history of
drug abuse, we find no clear error with regard to the court’s ruling on the best interests prong.
Respondent additionally suggests in his appellate brief that the family court erred in
determining that statutory grounds for termination had been established. However, respondent
did not raise this issue in the statement of questions presented for appeal. Accordingly, he has
failed to present it properly for review. See Preston v Dep’t of Treasury, 190 Mich App 491,
498; 476 NW2d 455 (1991). Nevertheless, we find no clear error with regard to the court’s
conclusion that MCL 712A.19b(3)(h) had been established by clear and convincing evidence.
Because only one statutory basis need be established to warrant termination, see Trejo, supra at
360, we need not address respondent’s additional unpreserved argument that the family court
improperly relied on MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j) in terminating his parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
