IN RE ZYLSTRA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of T.L.Z. and T.L.Z., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 11, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235621
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-036636-NA
TAMMY HAWKINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TERRY L. ZYLSTRA,
Respondent.
In the Matter of T.L.Z. and T.L.Z., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235960
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-036636-NA
TERRY L. ZYLSTRA,
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Jansen and R. J. Danhof*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
In these consolidated appeals, respondent Tammy Hawkins appeals as of right, and
respondent Terry Zylstra appeals by delayed leave granted, from the trial court’s order
terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm.
The record reveals a history of domestic violence between respondents. Moreover,
during the trial, respondents continued to see each other despite court orders to the contrary.
Indeed, respondent Hawkins testified that she could not guarantee that she would refuse to see
respondent Zylstra in the future. We further note that several of the domestic violence incidents
took place with the respondents’ minor children present. Respondent Hawkins also admitted that
exposure to the domestic violence affected the older children negatively. Consequently, we
conclude that the trial 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 because at least one ground for termination was established, the trial court was
required to terminate respondents’ rights unless it found that termination was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 364-365; 612 NW2d
407 (2000). The trial court’s finding regarding the children’s best interests was not clearly
erroneous. Trejo, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating respondentsappellants’ parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Robert J. Danhof
-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.
