Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2012 In the Matter of J. C. Britten, Minor. No. 305962 Crawford Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 09-003756-NA

In the Matter of J. C. Britten, Minor.

No. 306214 Crawford Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 09-003756-NA

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and DONOFRIO and FORT HOOD, JJ. PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, respondents J. Britten (respondent-father) and C. Britten (respondent-mother) each appeal as of right from the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(ii), (g), and (j). We affirm. Both respondents challenge the trial court's determination that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, and its determination under MCL 712A.19b(5) that termination was in the child's best interests. We review the trial court's findings regarding the existence of a statutory ground for termination, and its decision regarding the child's best interests for clear error, giving deference to the trial court's special opportunity to judge the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. MCR 3.977(K); In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 209; 661 NW2d 216 (2003); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The record does not support respondent-mother's argument that the trial court chose to discredit the testimony of certain witnesses merely to achieve a desired outcome. We also reject respondent-mother's contention that the testimony of Wayne Simmons, who conducted the psychological evaluations of respondents and the child, was the primary basis for the trial court's finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established. Although the trial court gave weight to portions of Simmons's testimony, it is clear that the court evaluated that testimony by comparing it to other evidence concerning respondent-mother's progress, including respondent-1-

mother's own testimony, to determine that respondent-mother had failed to rectify her inability to regulate her emotions to a level where she would no longer cause mental harm to the child. It is not enough that a parent physically comply with the terms of a parent/agency agreement or case service plan in a child protective proceeding. In re Gazella, 264 Mich App 668, 676; 692 NW2d 708 (2005). "[A] parent must benefit from the services offered so that he or she can improve parenting skills to the point where the children would no longer be at risk in the parent's custody." Id. Considering the evidence as a whole, and giving appropriate deference to the trial court's determination of the credibility and weight of the witnesses' testimony, we find no clear error in the trial court's assessment of respondent-mother's failure to achieve emotional stability, especially in circumstances involving stress or conflict, and the effect of respondent-mother's emotional instability on the child. In re JK, 468 Mich at 209; In re Miller, 433 Mich at 337. Further, considering respondent-mother's lack of progress in addressing this primary issue, and the chronic nature of her mental health issues, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that

Download IN RE J C BRITTEN MINOR.pdf

Michigan Law