IN RE JANESSA CASTILLO MINOR

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of JANESSA CASTILLO and KEISHA CASTILLO, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 1998 Petitioner-Appellee, v ANGELA CASTILLO and ERASMO CASTILLO, Nos. 207345; 207349 St. Clair Juvenile Court LC No. 91-000299 Respondents-Appellants. Before: Hood, P.J., and Griffin and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondents appeal as of right from the juvenile court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i).1 We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). The juvenile court reached its decision upon consideration of the records of the entire case at the dispositional hearing. Once a court determines, upon clear and convincing evidence, the existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination, the court “shall order termination of parental rights . . . unless the court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests.” MCL 712A.19(b)(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); see also MCR 5.974(F)(3). We conclude that the juvenile court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory ground for termination was established. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Because the juvenile court concluded that the statutory basis for termination of respondents’ parental rights was satisfied, respondents bore the burden of going forward with evidence that termination is clearly not in the children’s best interests. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472­ 473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Here, because respondents offered no evidence that termination was -1­ clearly not in their children’s best interests, the juvenile court properly terminated respondents’ parental rights. Affirmed. /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin /s/ Peter D. O’Connell 1 The record indicates that the juvenile court expressly found that termination was not justified under § 19b(3)(b)(i), and did not address whether termination was justified under § 19b(3)(j). Therefore, we will not address those statutory grounds. -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.