IN RE CHANDLER/JOHNSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.I.C., T.D.J., and D.E.J., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 235155
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-367843
CATRINA DENNAE JOHNSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DONALD E. LAMB and DANIEL CHANDLER,
Respondents.
In the Matter of D.I.C., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237078
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-367843
DANIEL CHANDLER,
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DONALD E. LAMB and CATRINA DENNAE
JOHNSON,
Respondents.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Saad and R. B. Burns*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In Docket No. 235155, respondent Catrina Johnson appeals as of right from the family
court order terminating her parental rights to her minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii),
(c)(i), (g), and (j). In Docket No. 237078, respondent Daniel Johnson appeals as of right from
the family court order terminating his parental rights to his minor child under MCL
712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (b)(i), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
This Court does not consider respondent Johnson’s claim that she was not properly
notified of the adjudication trial because this claim is an improper collateral attack on the trial
court’s exercise of jurisdiction. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426, 444; 505 NW2d 834 (1993); In re
Powers, 208 Mich App 582, 587-588; 528 NW2d 799 (1995).
Further, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were
established by clear and convincing evidence with respect to respondent Johnson. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The evidence also did not show that termination of respondent
Johnson’s parental rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent Johnson’s parental rights to the children.
With respect to respondent Chandler, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
§§ 19b(3)(b)(i), (g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I);
Sours, supra; Miller, supra. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent
Chandler’s parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo,
supra. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent Chandler’s parental rights to the
child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Robert B. Burns
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.
