IN RE GARETT JAMES-ALLEN BEAUCHAINE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of GARETT JAMES BEAUCHAINE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 27, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 223760
Marquette Juvenile Court
LC No. 98-006091
TANYA BEAUCHAINE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES G. HAMM,
Respondent.
In the Matter of GARETT JAMES BEAUCHAINE,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 223993
Marquette Juvenile Court
LC No. 98-006091
JAMES G. HAMM,
Respondent-Appellant,
-1
and
TANYA BEAUCHAINE,
Respondent.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Collins and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants, Tanya Beauchaine and James G. Hamm,
appeal as of right from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to the minor child
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (c)(ii). We
affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that §§ 19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii) were established by clear
and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 455 NW2d 161 (1989).
The child was made a temporary ward of the court due to physical abuse. There was significant
evidence the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing.
While respondents-appellants made efforts to complete the court ordered services, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding the child would be subject to the same risk of abuse if placed back into
respondents-appellants’ care. Respondents-appellants failed to show that termination of their parental
rights was clearly not in the child’s best interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In
re Huisman, 230 Mich App 372, 384-385; 584 NW2d 349 (1998). Accordingly, the trial court did
not clearly err in terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
-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.
