IN RE BIGHAM MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DOMINICK BIGHAM and
NATHAN BIGHAM, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 2, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 255771
Ingham Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-047536-NA
JIMI FLINT,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TANYA BIGHAM,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating his
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Respondent-appellant left the children and moved out of state while
a child protective services case was pending. He remained out of state for almost three years,
during which time he maintained minimal contact and support notwithstanding his knowledge of
the difficulties the children’s mother was having managing the care of the children.
Further the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors,
462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). One of respondent-appellant’s children suffers
from multiple mental disorders and is mentally impaired. The testimony indicated respondentappellant would most likely never obtain the skills necessary to parent this child and that he
would require at least a year of training and therapy before he would be capable of adequately
parenting the other child.
-1-
Respondent-appellant also argues that he was denied his right to due process because the
trial court failed to take into consideration all of the facts when making its decision, particularly
the fact that he had enrolled in a father nurturing class. This argument goes only to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination order and does not set forth a due process
violation claim. As we have already noted, there was ample evidence to support the trial court’s
termination order. Respondent-appellant further contends that he was not provided with
reunification services. The record does not support this assertion because respondent-appellant
was included in service plans and afforded supervised visitation and an opportunity to participate
in services.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/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.
