Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS

In the Matter of WILLIAM DUNN, Minor.

FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee, v JENNIFER JONES, Respondent-Appellant, and ALVIN DUNN, JR., Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2007

No. 272841 Washtenaw Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 03-000135-NA

Before: Saad, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent Jennifer Jones appeals from an order that terminated her parental rights to the minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History The trial court obtained jurisdiction over the child after respondent admitted that the child suffered brain injuries associated with shaken baby syndrome when he was eight months old. The injuries apparently occurred when the child was in the care of an acquaintance of respondent. The child was placed with his paternal grandfather, Alvin Dunn, Sr., and his wife Edna, who temporarily moved from Indiana to Michigan to care for the child. Several months after this placement was arranged, petitioner permitted the Dunns to take the child to their home in Indiana pursuant to an interstate placement arrangement. Pursuant to the court-ordered treatment plan, respondent completed parenting classes and attended an anger management class and therapy sessions. She also worked with a Michigan State University Extension counselor on budgeting issues, but never consistently presented accurate and complete monthly budgets. Respondent was required to make diligent efforts to

-1-


attend the child's physical therapy sessions while the child was in Michigan, but she quit attending them because she was not comfortable with Edna's presence. After the child was relocated to Indiana, petitioner arranged for respondent to visit him once a month in the Dunns' home. Edna reported that respondent spent the visits crying and talking on the telephone instead of caring for the child. Respondent complained that the Indiana visits were disadvantageous because she was exhausted from the 24-hour bus ride and Edna was hostile to her and did not allow her to feed or bathe the child. Respondent's caseworker, Anjanetta Cates, believed that Edna was supportive of respondent. The parent-agency agreement required respondent to make diligent efforts to obtain safe and suitable housing, but she never complied with this requirement. Respondent was unable to afford her trailer rent and utilities after she and Alvin Dunn, Jr., separated. She moved in with her mother, but respondent's caseworker believed that this arrangement was not stable because respondent and her mother had a contentious history and fought constantly. Respondent later left her mother's home and moved in with a new boyfriend, whom she had known only a few weeks. Respondent often indicated that she would utilize petitioner's resources to find her own home, but never followed through with this plan. Nearly two years after the court initially assumed jurisdiction over the child, petitioner filed a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to resolve her mental health issues in counseling, failed to establish safe and suitable housing, and failed to learn how to understand and manage the child's special needs. Following a lengthy hearing, the trial court terminated respondent's parental rights. II. Analysis A. Statutory Grounds for Termination Respondent argues that there was insufficient evidence of a statutory ground to terminate her parental rights. We disagree. In order to terminate parental rights, the trial court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination in MCL 712A.19b(3) has been met by clear and convincing evidence. In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47, 50; 480 NW2d 293 (1991). We review the trial court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. MCR 3.977(J); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Here, the trial court found grounds to terminate respondent's parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), which provide for termination under the following circumstances: (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:

-2-


(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. *** (j) There is a reasonable likelihood, based on the conduct or capacity of the child's parent, that the child will be harmed if he or she is returned to the home of the parent. With respect to

Download IN RE WILLIAM DUNN MINOR.pdf

Michigan Law