IN RE DANIEL HERNANDEZ MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DANIEL HERNANDEZ, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
March 13, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279373
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-051051-NA
JOSE HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHELLE HERNANDEZ and JOSE VASQUEZ,
Respondents.
In the Matter of JOSLYNN VAZQUEZ, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279486
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-051423-NA
MICHELLE HERNANDEZ,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSE HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO and JOSE
VASQUEZ,
Respondents.
-1-
In the Matter of DANIEL HERNANDEZ, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 279487
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 06-051051-NA
MICHELLE HERNANDEZ,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSE HERNANDEZ-CASTILLO and JOSE
VASQUEZ,
Respondents.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Smolenski and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents Jose Hernandez-Castillo and Michelle
Hernandez appeal as of right from the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to the
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to both respondents. MCR
3.977(J); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The evidence established that
respondents were involved in a chaotic and volatile relationship that was marked by violence and
conflict. Respondent Hernandez made numerous allegations of domestic violence and criminal
conduct against respondent Hernandez-Castillo. But her accounts of these incidents were often
inconsistent and in several instances she later recanted the allegations. Both respondents
continued to associate with each other despite the issuance of no-contact and personal protection
orders prohibiting their contact. The evidence clearly established that respondents’ volatile
relationship and continued association was harmful to the children. Although Hernandez and
Hernandez-Castillo were divorced by the time of the termination hearing, Hernandez indicated
that she felt that petitioner forced her to proceed with the divorce proceedings. Additional
evidence established that respondents were still involved in a relationship and that Hernandez
was pregnant with Hernandez-Castillo’s child. The evidence also established that HernandezCastillo made threatening remarks to his child during supervised visits and was unable to
demonstrate proper discipline methods. Hernandez repeatedly ignored one of her children
during visits.
-2-
Further, the evidence did not clearly show that termination of respondents’ parental rights
was not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5), In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-3-
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.
