IN RE BANKS/HOLMES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.J.B., D.L.B., J.D.H., J.D.H.,
D.H., and J.M.H., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238028
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-390578
DONNEL HOLMES-EL, a/k/a DONNEL
HOLMES,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DALETHA JOANN
LETRENT BANKS,
GREEN
and
DWIGHT
Respondents.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating his parental right to his
children J.D.H., J.D.H., D.H., and J.M.H. pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j).1 We
affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 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
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Daletha Joann Green,
the mother of all the children involved in the case, and respondent Dwight Letrent Banks, the
father of D.J.B. and D.L.B. Respondents Green and Banks have not appealed the order.
-1-
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, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review
the trial court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
We hold the trial court did not err in finding that petitioner established by clear and
convincing evidence one or more statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental
rights. The evidence showed that respondent had been incarcerated for several years before the
children were taken into custody, and it was possible he could remain in prison for nearly ten
additional years. Respondent had not seen the children since his incarceration, and he offered no
viable plan for the children’s care during his imprisonment. The evidence also showed that
whenever respondent gained his release he would be required to demonstrate he could provide
proper care and custody for the children before he could gain custody.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was warranted on the grounds the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist
and were not reasonably likely to be rectified within a reasonable time considering the children’s
ages, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), that respondent failed to provide proper care or custody for the
children and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), and
that it was reasonably likely the children would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care, MCL
712A.19b(3)(j). The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); Trejo, supra.
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.
