Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

UNPUBLISHED June 26, 2012 In the Matter of SIMMONS-JOHNSON and MOORE, Minors. No. 306598 Oakland Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 09-766514-NA

Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and SAWYER and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals as of right from the trial court's order terminating her parental rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (b)(iii), (c)(i), (g), (j), (k)(iii), (k)(iv), and (k)(v). We affirm. The older child, ZSJ, was removed from respondent's custody and placed in foster care in December 2009, after his two-month old sibling suffered serious injuries that resulted in his death. The sibling had several injuries of different ages and had been in the care of several different caregivers, including respondent, during the time period preceding his admission to the hospital in December 2009. The person responsible for the child's injuries was never established. A treatment plan was established to allow respondent to participate in reunification services with respect to ZSJ. In January 2011, respondent gave birth to CM, who was also removed from respondent's custody. A hearing on a supplemental petition to terminate respondent's parental rights to ZSJ was conducted in April 2011, but the trial court declined to terminate respondent's parental rights because it believed that she was making progress on her treatment plan. However, another supplemental petition to terminate respondent's parental rights to ZSJ was filed in August 2011, based on respondent's continued failure to comply with the requirements of her parent-agency agreement. In September 2011, the trial court conducted a joint hearing on the supplemental petition concerning ZSJ and on an original petition to terminate respondent's parental rights to CM at the initial dispositional hearing. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that multiple statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination of respondent's parental rights to both children was in the children's best interests. On appeal, respondent first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence.

-1-

A petitioner is required to establish a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 351; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). This Court reviews the trial court's factual findings, as well as its ultimate decision whether a statutory ground for termination has been proven, for clear error. MCR 3.977(K); In re Mason, 486 Mich 142, 152; 782 NW2d 747 (2010). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Deference is given to the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. In re Newman, 189 Mich App 61, 65; 472 NW2d 38 (1991). The trial court found that termination of respondent's parental rights was warranted under

Download IN RE SIMMONS-JOHNSON/MOORE.pdf

Michigan Law