IN RE GRIFFIN/NETTLES/HEARD MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.A.N., T.A.H., II, and I.S.D.H.,
Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 20, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 235819
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-384111
DONNA LEE GRIFFIN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TERRANCE ANTHONY LEE , a/k/a TERRANCE
E-LEE ANTHONY HEARD, and RODERICK
NETTLES,
Respondents.
In the Matter of T.A.H., II, and I.S.D.H., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 237386
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-384111
TERRENCE ANTHONY LEE HEARD, a/k/a
TERRENCE E-LEE ANTHONY HEARD,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DONNA LEE GRIFFIN and RODERICK
NETTLES,
Respondents.
-1-
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this consolidated case, respondent-appellant mother appeals as of right from the circuit
court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children, D.A.N., T.A.H., II, and
I.S.D.H., under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). Respondent-appellant father appeals as of
right from the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to the minor children, T.A.H., II,
and I.S.D.H., under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. These cases have been
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The circuit 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 respondentsappellants’ 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). Therefore, the circuit court did not err
in terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to the minor children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
