IN RE ADAM; ANGEL; RACHEL; MICHAEL DELBOSQUE MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of ADAM DELBOSQUE, ANGEL DELBOSQUE, RACHEL DELBOSQUE, and MICHAEL DELBOSQUE, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 18, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 207810 Roscommon Juvenile Court LC No. 96-009064 NA GLORIA K. DELBOSQUE, Respondent-Appellant. Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent appeals as of right from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (c)(i), (c)(ii), and (g). We affirm. The juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent failed to show that termination of her parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the juvenile court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights. Affirmed.1 /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Peter D. O’Connell -1­ 1 We note that respondent’s argument that “no evidence was presented” to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the children’s best interests is misplaced. Pursuant to In re Hall-Smith, supra, the burden of coming forward with evidence that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests is on the respondent. In any event, the evidence clearly shows that termination was in the children’s best interests. -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.