IN RE BRANDEN CLARK MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRANDEN CLARK, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 13, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 251379
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-001258-NA
BERNICE CLARK,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RONALD PLANK,
Respondent.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Murphy and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Bernice Clark (hereafter “respondent”) appeals as of right from an order
terminating her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g) and (i).
We affirm.
Respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence to justify terminating her parental
rights to the child. We disagree.
The existence of a statutory ground for termination must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(F)(1)(b) and (G)(3)1; In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 344-345;
445 NW2d 161 (1989). The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error and may
not be set aside unless this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made. MCR 3.977(J); In re Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 42-43; 549 NW2d 353 (1996).
1
The court rules governing child protective proceedings were amended and recodified as part of
new MCR subchapter 3.900, effective May 1, 2003. This opinion refers to the rules in effect at
the time the child was taken into care.
-1-
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(g) and (i) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence clearly and convincingly showed
that respondent, who had a prior history of abusing illegal drugs, was now abusing prescription
drugs and refused to admit or address the problem. Additionally, the evidence showed that
respondent failed to maintain stable housing and continued her relationship with the child’s
father despite his temper, mental illness, prescription and illegal drug use, and criminality.
Termination of respondent’s parental rights was also proper under § 19b(3)(i), because it was
undisputed that respondent’s parental rights were previously terminated to three other children
and respondent’s continued abuse of prescription pain medication clearly showed that attempts to
rehabilitate her had not been successful.
Because only a single statutory ground is required in order to terminate parental rights,
§ 19b(3), we need not address whether termination of respondent’s parental rights was also
warranted under § 19b(3)(c)(i).
Concerning the child’s best interests, the evidence indicated that the child was doing well
in foster care, was developing at an appropriate pace for his age, and had adjusted to day care.
The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 353-354, 356; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). The trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to the
child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
