IN RE LONGHINI MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of BRITTANY L. LONGHINI and BRANDON L. LONGHINI, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED April 25, 2000 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 219379 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-358015 CHARLENE MARIE LITTLE, Respondent-Appellant, and DANNY CHRIS LONGHINI, Respondent. In the Matter of BRITTANY L. LONGHINI and BRANDON L. LONGHINI, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 219612 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-358015 DANNY CHRIS LONGHINI, Respondent-Appellant, -1­ and CHARLENE MARIE LITTLE, Respondent. Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ. MEMORANDUM. In these consolidated cases, appellants appeal by delayed leave granted the family court order terminating their parental rights to their minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g),and (j). We affirm. Only one statutory ground for termination must be established in order to terminate parental rights. See In re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). The trial 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); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Although appellants complied with some of the court’s orders for treatment, the evidence revealed that both parents failed to completely resolve their substance abuse problems and criminal justice problems during the nineteen months the children were in foster care. The record shows that both appellants have a long history of substance abuse and a history of doing well for a short period of time, then relapsing. The evidence clearly shows that they could not provide a suitable home for the children at the time of the termination hearing or within a reasonable period of time. Further, appellants failed to show that termination of their 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, supra. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating both appellants’ parental rights to the children. We affirm. /s/ Roman S. Gribbs /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Jane E. Markey -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.