IN RE AUSTIN/COLLINS/LOGAN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of COREY JAMES AUSTIN,
DOMINIQUE MARCHE COLLINS, NATASHA
MICHELLE COLLINS, and SAVONE
MARCELLIS COLLINS, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 225816
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-374045
JOANNA AUSTIN,
Respondent,
and
COREY COLLINS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Sawyer, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent father appeals from an order of the probate court terminating his parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(i), (c)(i), (g) and (j). We affirm.
In making a termination decision, the trial court must engage in a two-step analysis. First,
it must determine if a statutory ground for termination has been established by clear and
convincing evidence. In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 632; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). Second,
if a statutory ground has been established, the trial court must terminate parental rights unless
there exists clear evidence on the whole record that it is not in the child’s best interests to
terminate parental rights. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 354; 603 NW2d 787 (2000).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record on appeal, the opinion of the trial court, and
the parties’ briefs. We are not persuaded that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory
-1-
grounds for termination under subsections (3)(c)(i) and (3)(g) were met and that it was in the best
interests of the children to terminate the parental rights.1 Accordingly, we find no abuse of
discretion by the trial court in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ David H. Sawyer
1
Plaintiff concedes that there was no basis for terminating respondent’s parental rights under
subsection (3)(b). As for subsection (3)(j), because we conclude that termination was proper
under other statutory grounds, we decline to address the question whether termination was proper
under subsection (3)(j).
-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.
