IN RE LAMB MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALLANTE MARTICE LAMB
and MARCUS MARTEZ LAMB, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 24, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 250465
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 02-409594
JULIA VICTORIA LAMB, f/k/a JULIA
VICTORIA MCNIGHT,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j) and (k)(iii). We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The petitioner must establish a statutory ground for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)
by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407
(2000). Once a court finds that a statutory ground for termination has been established, it must
terminate the respondent’s parental rights unless it finds that termination is clearly not in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 364-365. This Court reviews
decisions terminating parental rights for clear error. Id. at 356. A decision is clearly erroneous
if, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209-210;
661 NW2d 216 (2003).
The evidence showed that respondent failed to protect her children from ongoing physical
abuse and sexual abuse by the children’s father. Additionally, the evidence that respondent
physically abused her nieces was probative of how she would treat her own children. In re AH,
245 Mich App 77, 84; 627 NW2d 33, (2001); In re Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 588-589; 528
NW2d 799 (1995); In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 26; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). Thus, the trial
court did not clearly err in finding that subsections 19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (j) and (k)(iii) were each
established by clear and convincing evidence. Further, the evidence failed to show that
termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL
-1-
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s
parental rights to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
