IN RE BAKER MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of JESSICA BAKER, JENNIFER BAKER, and JACQUELINE BAKER, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 1999 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 216097 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 92-302053 NINA REBECCA FROWNER, Respondent-Appellant, and FLOYD BAKER and FLOYD VAN WROTEN, Respondents. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Hoekstra and J. R. Cooper*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from a family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i). We affirm. We could decline to consider respondent-appellant's argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in support of termination because respondent-appellant gives only cursory treatment to this claim by failing to relate her argument to the statutory criteria set forth in § 19b(3)(b)(i). See Goolsby v Detroit, 419 Mich 651, 655 n 1; 358 NW2d 856 (1984); Community Nat'l Bank v Michigan Basic Property Ins Ass'n, 159 Mich App 510, 520-521; 407 NW2d 31 (1987). In any event, we are not persuaded that the specific argument presented by respondent-appellant demonstrates a basis for * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ holding that the referee clearly erred 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). See also In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). The thrust of respondent-appellant's argument appears to be directed at the best interests prong of the termination decision, but respondent-appellant has 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); MCR 5.974(D); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, we uphold the judge's decision to affirm the referee's recommendation. MCR 5.991(D). Petitioner's request for relief under MCR 7.215(E)(2) is denied. Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Jessica R. Cooper -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.