IN RE HALL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BROOKLYN MARIE HALL and
BRIAN SCOTT HALL, JR., Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
February 7, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 281193
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-000127-NA
BRIAN HALL,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cavanagh and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental rights to the minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent indicated that he loved his children and wanted to be a good father and
actively involved in their upbringing. Although respondent had taken steps to address some of
the identified concerns that brought the children into care there was insufficient documentation
he had fully resolved the issues of domestic violence and substance abuse, which had been
recurring issues when respondent was not incarcerated. Respondent asserted that he intended to
alter his behavior to preclude future involvement with the criminal justice system. However,
respondent acknowledged having 11 criminal convictions, including his most recent for domestic
violence, and as noted by the Referee, respondent “has never been free of involvement with
illegal drugs and the Criminal Justice System during any substantial period of his adult life.”
The children were adjudicated as court wards based in part on respondent’s inability to
care for them because he was incarcerated, and because respondent left the children with their
mother, who was also unable to provide adequate care for them. At the time of the termination
hearing 14 months later, respondent remained in prison and the children’s mother was unable to
care for them because her own parental rights had been previously terminated. As such, the trial
court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) were each established by clear and
convincing evidence. In re IEM, 233 Mich App 438, 450; 592 NW2d 751 (1999). Because the
trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was warranted under §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and
(g), it is unnecessary to determine whether termination was also justified under § 19b(3)(j).
-1-
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondent’s parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000);
MCL 712A.19b(5). Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights to
the children. In re Trejo, supra at 356-357.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
