IN RE ALEXIS LYNN PENNINGTON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ALEXIS LYNN PENNINGTON,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 27, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 273022
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-007308-NA
GREGORY PENNINGTON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TAWANA MARSH,
Respondent.
In the Matter of ALEXIS LYNN PENNINGTON,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 273023
Barry Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-007308-NA
TAWANA MARSH,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
GREGORY PENNINGTON,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Bandstra and Owens, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from an order terminating
their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm. This appeal
is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondents do not dispute that the statutory ground for termination was established.
Instead, they contend that termination of their parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best
interests. MCL 712A.19b(5). The trial court’s decision regarding a child’s best interests is
reviewed for clear error. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The trial
court did not clearly err in concluding that termination was in the best interests of the child.
At the time of termination, respondents did not have sufficient income or stable housing.
Indeed, for years they had relied upon others for their own basic needs. They had not
demonstrated that they could provide for themselves, let alone, for the needs of a child.
Moreover, there was sufficient evidence from which the court could infer that respondent
Pennington, a convicted sex offender, was at risk of sexually re-offending. This, coupled with
respondent Marsh’s questionable ability to protect her child, raised serious concerns for the
child’s safety if placed with respondents. Contrary to respondents’ assertions, the evidence did
clearly not show that termination of their parental rights was contrary to the child’s best interests.
MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
