IN RE BARBARA ANN GAUTHIER MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of M.J.G. and J.A.G., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240925
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-023722-NA
WENDY GAUTHIER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PHILLIP DARABOS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of B.R.G., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240926
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-023724-NA
WENDY GAUTHIER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CHARLES MAGOO,
Respondent.
-1-
In the Matter of B.A.G., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 240927
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-023725-NA
WENDY GAUTHIER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
THOMAS TACKLEBURY,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, respondent Gauthier appeals as of right from a circuit court
order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent does not deny that there were grounds for termination of her parental rights.
She contends only that the trial court erred in finding that termination was in the children’s best
interest.
If the court finds grounds for termination of parental rights, it is required to order
termination unless it “finds that termination of parental rights to the child is clearly not in the
child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19b(5). This means that “[o]nce a statutory ground for
termination of parental rights is established, the court must issue an order terminating parental
rights unless there exists clear evidence, on the whole record, that termination is not in the
child’s best interests.” In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The family
court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests is reviewed for clear error. Id. at 356-357. A
finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re Vasquez, 199 Mich
App 44, 51-52; 501 NW2d 231 (1993).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in the children’s best
interest. Not only did respondent persistently fail to comply with various treatment plans over
-2-
several years, the foster care worker testified that termination would be in the children’s best
interest if respondent failed to comply with the Adrianson1 agreement because her continuing
substance abuse problem presented a risk of harm to the children. Respondent herself admitted
that if she failed to comply with the agreement, termination of her parental rights was in the
children’s best interest. Having conceded the issue below, respondent has waived it on appeal.
Living Alternatives for the Developmentally Disabled, Inc v Dep’t of Mental Health, 207 Mich
App 482, 484; 525 NW2d 466 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
1
In re Adrianson, 105 Mich App 300, 316; 306 NW2d 487 (1981).
-3-
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.
