IN RE BREANNA SHAWN HENDRIX MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BREANNA SHAWN HENDRIX,
Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 7, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 283704
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 04-429736-NA
SHAWN HENDRIX,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Smolenski and Gleicher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent Shawn Hendrix appeals as of right from the order terminating his parental
rights to his daughter 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).
Termination of a respondent’s parental rights is appropriate when the petitioner
establishes at least one ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo
Minors, 462 Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial court’s findings for
clear error. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A finding of fact is
clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,
giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. In
re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
The conditions that led to adjudication primarily involved the child’s mother’s failure to
supervise and protect her children. However, the petition also alleged that respondent owed
$8,186.26 in child support. Despite being employed at times during the case, respondent failed
to provide any financial support for his daughter. We acknowledge that, at one point in this case,
respondent was making progress in gaining custody of his child. Respondent had completed
parenting classes and had a home with his new wife. However, respondent’s situation changed.
Evidence revealed that respondent’s whereabouts had been unknown, that he did not have
suitable housing, and that he was incarcerated at the time of the termination trial. Thus, he was
not in a position to provide his child with a safe and stable home, and the evidence established
that he would not be able to do so within a reasonable time, given the child’s age and the length
of time she had been outside her parents’ care. Therefore, termination pursuant to
-1-
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g) was appropriate. Because termination was appropriate pursuant
to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g), we need not consider whether termination was also
appropriate under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
Respondent contends that the court ignored the bond between him and his daughter when
it determined that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not contrary to the
child’s best interests. We acknowledge that respondent’s grandmother testified that this bond
existed. In addition, respondent testified that he wanted to plan for the child. However, the child
had been in her great-grandmother’s care for some time and, according to her foster care worker,
needed permanency. Furthermore, respondent had failed to provide for the child, even when he
was able to do so. Thus, the evidence did not demonstrate that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests.
Trejo, supra at 354;
MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-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.
