IN RE PAYNE/LUMMEN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of T. C. L., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226496
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 88-020051-NA
CAROL ANN PAYNE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN MORRIS,
Respondent.
In the Matter of R. K. B. and M. H. B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226497
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-025368-NA
CAROL ANN PAYNE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
RICHARD BILICKI,
Respondent.
-1-
___________________________________________
In the Matter of B. J. P. and J. T. L., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 226498
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-025369-NA
CAROL ANN PAYNE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
LARRY PAYNE,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondent-appellant Carol Payne (hereinafter
"respondent") appeals as of right the termination of her parental rights to the minor children
pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i),
(g) and (j). We affirm.
Respondent does not challenge the family court’s determination that the statutory grounds
for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. Rather, she maintains that
termination was not warranted based on a consideration of the children’s best interests.
The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove a statutory ground for termination by
clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 350; 612 NW2d 407 (2000).
Once that burden is met, pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5), "the court
must issue an order terminating parental rights unless there exists clear evidence, on the whole
record, that termination is not in the child's best interests." Trejo, supra at 354. A court should
decide the "best interests" question based upon all of the evidence presented and without regard
to which party produced the evidence. Id. at 352-354. The court's decision regarding the child's
best interests is reviewed for clear error. Id. at 364.
Whatever bond respondent had with her children, the strength of that bond did not justify
the children’s continued exposure to the repeated abuse and harm that they suffered while living
with respondent. The evidence was overwhelming that the children’s interests would be better
-2-
served living in a stable and safe environment, which respondent was unable to provide in the
past and was not reasonably likely to be able to provide in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the
mere fact that respondent was allowed to retain custody of her sixth child did not establish that
she could reasonably be expected to provide the care and stability that the other five children
required. We find no clear error in the family court’s determination that the children’s best
interests would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
-3-
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.
