IN RE BRETT PEMBROKE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of BRETT PEMBROKE and
BRANDANIEL PEMBROKE, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 25, 1998
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 200994
Genesee Juvenile Court
LC No. 94-099720 NA
KELLY CARPENTER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
PATRICK PEMBROKE,
Respondent.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Wahls and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant Kelly Carpenter appeals as of right from an order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (ii), (g), and (j).1 We affirm.
In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich
App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). Once a statutory ground for termination has been met by clear
and convincing evidence, the court shall order termination of parental rights, unless the parent provides
some evidence from which the court could conclude that termination is clearly not in the best interests of
the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470,
-1
473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). The trial court’s decision regarding termination is reviewed in its entirety
for clear error. In re Hall-Smith, supra at 472.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence showed that respondent-appellant did not
comply with important aspects of the FIA’s service plan to assist her in rectifying the conditions that led
to adjudication. The evidence also showed that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children
would be harmed if they were returned to respondent-appellant’s care. Furthermore, the evidence
established that, without regard to intent, there was no reasonable expectation that respondent-appellant
would be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the ages of the
children. Finally, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that respondent-appellant failed to provide
some evidence from which it could conclude that termination was clearly not in the best interests of the
children. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
1
The trial court terminated the parental rights of respondent Patrick Pembroke pursuant to MCL
27A.19b(3)(a); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a). Pembroke is not a party to this appeal.
-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.
