IN RE ESTRADA MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JONATHON JESUS ESTRADA,
HANNAH ROSE ESTRADA and CARLOS
MIGUEL ESTRADA, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 25, 2007
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 277427
Branch Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-003415-NA
MICHELLE ESTRADA,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JESUS ESTRADA,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Sawyer and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent mother appeals from an order of the circuit court terminating her parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) and (j). We affirm.
We review a trial court’s finding that at least one ground for termination has been
established by clear and convincing evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR
3.977(J); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Once a ground for
termination has been established, the trial court must terminate the parent’s parental rights unless
it is clearly not in the best interests of the child to do so. MCL 712A.19b(5). In re Trejo Minors,
462 Mich 341, 357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii) provides as follows:
(c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this
chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial
dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either
of the following:
-1-
(ii) Other conditions exist that cause the child to come within the court's
jurisdiction, the parent has received recommendations to rectify those conditions,
the conditions have not been rectified by the parent after the parent has received
notice and a hearing and has been given a reasonable opportunity to rectify the
conditions, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be
rectified within a reasonable time considering the child’s age.
The trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that respondent has
failed to rectify those conditions that cause the children to come within the court’s jurisdiction.
We are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion and that
the trial court’s conclusion was not clearly erroneous. Specifically, various counselors and
agency employees testified that little or no progress had been made since the initial referral and
that the prospect of making sufficient progress was very long term at best.
The alternative ground for termination was MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), which provides:
(j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of
the child’s parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the
home of the parent.
Respondent presents nothing more than a single sentence assertion that this ground was not met.
But having concluded that the first ground for termination was properly established, we need not
consider this ground.
Finally, while respondent’s brief identified as a question presented whether termination
was in the children’s best interests, no actual argument on this point was presented.
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has abandoned this argument. People v Matuszak,
263 Mich App 42, 58; 687 NW2d 342 (2004).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
