IN RE TIMOTHY MAURICE BADGETT JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of TIMOTHY MAURICE
BADGETT, JR., Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 5, 2010
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 293154
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 08-000065-NA
JENNIFER RENNO,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, C.J., and Jansen and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the
minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), (j), (l), and (m). We affirm. This appeal has
been decided without oral argument. MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent does not challenge the trial court’s findings with respect to the statutory
grounds for termination. She contends only that the trial court erred by finding that termination
of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. See MCL 712A.19b(5). The trial court’s
best-interests decision was not clearly erroneous. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). Respondent has an eight-year history of substance abuse and failed previous
attempts at treatment, which led to the termination of her parental rights to the child’s siblings in
the past. The child at issue here tested positive for cocaine at birth and respondent admitted to
using marijuana during a subsequent pregnancy in late 2008 and early 2009. Although
respondent had recently begun substance abuse treatment again, she had not completed treatment
and there was no indication that she was able to maintain a drug-free lifestyle for any significant
period of time. The trial court did not clearly err by finding that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was in the child’s best interests. MCR 3.977(J).
To the extent respondent asserts that the trial court should have considered the statutory
best interest factors set forth in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.23, in making its best-interests
determination in this case, she has failed to establish a plain error affecting her substantial rights.
See Egbert R Smith Trust, 274 Mich App 283, 285; 731 NW2d 810 (2007). It is well settled that
use of the child-custody factors is not required in child protective proceedings. In re JS & SM,
231 Mich App 92, 102-103; 585 NW2d 326 (1998), overruled in part on other grounds In re
-1-
Trejo, supra at 353; In re Schejbal, 131 Mich App 833, 835; 346 NW2d 597 (1984). Further,
respondent has not explained how an analysis under the statutory child-custody factors would
have supported her position or militated against termination of her parental rights. We perceive
no plain error.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/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.
