IN RE BRANDON WILLIAM LOSSING-MEXICO MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRANDON WILLIAM
LOSSING-MEXICO, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 2009
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291791
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-000646-NA
PATRICIA LOSSING-MEXICO,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EDWARD LAWRENCE MEXICO, JR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of BRANDON WILLIAM
LOSSING-MEXICO, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 291822
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2008-000646-NA
EDWARD LAWRENCE MEXICO, JR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PATRICIA LOSSING-MEXICO,
Respondent.
-1-
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Meter and Beckering, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents appeal as of right from a trial court order
terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(l). We affirm.
Respondents do not challenge the trial court’s determination that § 19b(3)(l) was proven
by clear and convincing legally admissible evidence. MCR 3.977(E); In re Utrera, 281 Mich
App 1, 16-17; 761 NW2d 253 (2008). Instead, they argue that the trial court erred in its analysis
of the child’s best interests. “If the court finds that there are grounds for termination of parental
rights and that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests, the court shall order
termination of parental rights . . . .” MCL 712A.19b(5). The trial court’s decision regarding the
child’s best interests is reviewed for clear error. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d
407 (2000).
Respondents’ circumstances had not changed significantly since the prior termination
order was entered in January 2008. Respondent Lossing-Mexico had no source of income or
stable housing, and she was living with a violent partner whose violence she refused to
acknowledge. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that she had actually taken action to
return to school to become more employable after the child’s removal. Respondent Mexico also
lacked stable housing; had an unresolved “anger issue,” which had led him to criminally abuse
the child’s half-sibling; and had intentionally abandoned another half-sibling of the child.
Respondent Mexico did not articulate anything meaningful when asked what he had learned
from domestic-violence classes. We note that, in child protective proceedings, a parent’s
treatment of a child’s siblings is probative of how he or she is likely to treat the child at issue. In
re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 26: 501 NW2d 182 (1993). The trial court did not clearly err in
finding that termination of respondents’ parental rights was in the child’s best interests and that
the child deserved more stability than respondents were likely to provide.1
1
We note that the trial court was simply not required to resolve this issue strictly with regard to
the best-interests factors applicable to child-custody proceedings. See In re JS & SM, 231 Mich
App 92, 101-103; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Trejo,
supra at 353-354. Contrary to respondent Lossing-Mexico’s assertion, this holding has not been
“overruled” by MCL 722.1102(d). That statute defines the phrase “child-custody proceeding” to
include a proceeding to terminate parental rights. However, that definition is limited to the
phrase “child-custody proceeding” as used in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), MCL 722.1101 et seq. MCL 722.1102. This child protective
proceeding did not involve whether the trial court or another court had jurisdiction to make a
child-custody determination under Article 2 of the UCCJEA, MCL 722.1201 et seq. The trial
court in this case did use the child-custody factors in making its best-interests determination, and
we find no clear error with regard to its ultimate disposition.
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/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.
