Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


In the Matter of DUKE REINBOLT, CARRIE PRESTON and GREGORY PRESTON, Minors.

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v CATHLEEN REINBOLT, Respondent-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2001

No. 225325 Bay Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-006104-NA

Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Murphy and Fitzgerald, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent Cathleen Reinbolt appeals as of right from a January 7, 2000, trial court order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children, Duke Reinbolt (d/o/b 11/17/88), Carrie Preston (d/o/b 7/10/92) and Gregory Preston (d/o/b 12/01/93), pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g).1 We affirm. A two-prong test applies to a decision of the family division of circuit court to terminate parental rights. "First, the probate court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination, MCL 712A.19b; MSA 27.3178(598.19b), has been met by clear and convincing evidence." In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182 (1993). We review the family court's decision for clear error. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Sours Minors, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). A finding is clearly

At the time of termination, the two younger children were placed with their father, Gregory Preston, Sr. He and respondent separated and divorced during these proceedings, and termination of his rights was not sought. Meanwhile, the oldest child was in foster care, the parental rights of his natural father, Binh Nguyen, were not at issue during these proceedings because the court was not aware of his identity until after the proofs closed.

1

-1-

erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made. Miller, supra. The applicable statutory subsections, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g), provide: (3) The court may terminate a parent's parental rights to a child if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, 1 or more of the following: *** (c) The parent was a respondent in a proceeding brought under this chapter, 182 or more days have elapsed since the issuance of an initial dispositional order, and the court, by clear and convincing evidence, finds either of the following: (i) The conditions that led to the adjudication continue to exist and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions will be rectified within a reasonable time considering the child's age. *** (g) The parent, without regard to intent, fails to provide proper care or custody for the child and there is no reasonable expectation that the parent will be able to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time considering the child's age. The conditions which led to adjudication included respondent's lack of response to aggressive and violent conduct on the part of the oldest child, directed toward his two younger siblings, and inappropriate sexual contact between the three siblings. Over the two years of proceedings in this case, despite a slow start, Family Independence Agency intervention and services successfully addressed these issues with the children. The children's placements in safe, stable and structured homes brought an end to most, if not all, of the inappropriate behavior. Counseling provided for the children, though not nearly complete, was slowly uncovering details about various incidents. The combined efforts of the counselors and new caregivers were reconditioning the children, allowing them to understand that their previous behavior was unacceptable and teaching them appropriate interpersonal boundaries. Respondent, meanwhile, had seen little progress throughout the two years of intervention. The children were removed from respondent's custody because of her inability to protect them from each other. At the outset of these proceedings, the principle reason for this inability was identified as respondent's refusal to believe that the purported incidences of abusive behavior between the children had occurred. Testimony of the case workers and counselors established that two years later, respondent's measure of acknowledgment and acceptance had not significantly increased. Although respondent points to testimony of her counselor indicating that respondent showed progress during her last two counseling sessions, that counselor also testified that respondent had stopped counseling two months before the termination hearing and that -2-

respondent had vacillated between acceptance and denial of the children's allegations during the previous year. Each of the professionals involved in the case testified that at a minimum, respondent needed to accept that the children's allegations, even if ultimately proven untrue, presented issues needing to be addressed rather than ignored. However, the evidence showed that two years postremoval respondent had still failed to categorically acknowledge the seriousness of the alleged potential abuse and the observed sexual acting-out. Testimony suggested that respondent needed one to two years of consistent progress in counseling before the children would be safe in her care. Given these circumstances, and notwithstanding that the children were resolving their issues and thriving in their current placements, the trial court did not err in concluding that with respect to respondent, the conditions that led to the adjudication continued to exist at the time of termination. Clear and convincing evidence supported termination pursuant to

Download IN RE REINBOLT/PRESTON MINORS.pdf

Michigan Law