State vs Parents; Ford, Harden, Johnson, Moskowitz ,Yount

http://enewsblog.com/terrybankert/post/2005-09-02_05:49:21/



Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j); Children's best interests

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Ford

e-Journal Number: 28581

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Zahra, Gage, and Murray

The trial court did not clearly err in determining §§ 19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence and
in terminating both respondents-parents' parental rights. The
principal conditions leading to adjudication were respondents'
failure to provide stable and suitable housing, the mother's history
of alcohol abuse, and the father's deficient parenting skills. While
there was not clear and convincing evidence respondents continued to
lack suitable housing at the time of the termination trial, the
evidence indicated the other conditions of adjudication continued to
exist. The mother never complied with the parent/agency agreement
requirement she obtain a substance abuse assessment, failed to
comply with two referrals for drug screens, and only partially
complied with a third. While the father completed parenting classes,
there was no evidence he benefited from them. Both respondents also
failed to consistently visit the children. Respondents' failure to
show improved parenting skills and to comply with important aspects
of the parent/agency agreement provided adequate evidence for
termination. Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28581.pdf





Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(b),
(g), and (j); Children's best interests

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Harden

e-Journal Number: 28582

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Saad, Hoekstra, and Markey

The trial court did not clearly err in determining §§ 19b(3)(b),
(g), and (j) were established by clear and convincing evidence and
in terminating the respondent-mother's parental rights. The children
became temporary wards after a car struck one child. Their father
was incarcerated on a drug conviction at the time. He was later
killed in a drug-related shooting and the children, who were in the
car with him, were also shot and injured. The court concluded while
the respondent made some progress in addressing the issues bringing
the children into care, she clearly did not protect them from harm.
On the night of the shooting, she took the children to the father at
a known drug dealer's home. She knew he was associating with drug
dealers and he had tested positive for cocaine use. The children had
previously been abused or injured when respondent left them with
inappropriate caretakers. Further, she had a history of mental
health problems, alcohol and drug abuse, and unemployment. Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28582.pdfhttp://w
ww.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28582.pdf



Issues: Termination of the respondent-father's parental rights
pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) and the respondent-
mother's parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(i), (g), (j), and
(m); The child's best interests

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Johnson

e-Journal Number: 28583

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Cooper, Bandstra, and Kelly

The trial court did not clearly err in finding at least one
statutory ground for termination of both respondents' parental
rights to the minor child was established by clear and convincing
evidence and in terminating those rights. The minor child was taken
into custody due to domestic abuse between the parents. On one
occasion, police responded to an altercation in which the father
broke the mother's arm. Police had responded to domestic disputes at
their home on two prior occasions. The mother had previously secured
PPOs against the father. The child was originally allowed to stay
with his mother on the condition the father have no contact with her
or the child. However, the child was placed in foster care when
caseworkers found the father hiding in the basement of the mother's
home. The mother was later granted unsupervised visitation. Then,
the father was seen twice with the child, in violation of the court
order during the mother's visitation. Another time, the father bit
the mother on the leg during an altercation at her home while the
child was present. The mother chased the father out of the house
with a kitchen knife. The evidence showed the mother was unable to
protect herself and the child from the father. Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28583.pdf



Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(c)(ii),
(g), and (j); Best interests of the child

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Moskowitz

e-Journal Number: 28585

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Cooper, Bandstra, and Kelly

The trial court did not clearly err in finding at least one
statutory ground for the termination of both respondents' parental
rights was established and in terminating those rights. The infant
came into care due to her failure to gain weight during the first
month of her life and the petitioner's concern she was malnourished
and generally suffering a failure to thrive. Although respondents'
claimed the infant ate eight ounces at a time, a public health nurse
testified a newborn's stomach cannot handle that amount. One month
after her birth, the infant was very weak and thin, had poor
coloring, and was lethargic and limp when held. The public health
nurse testified the infant did not cry or make eye contact, which
was evidence her parents were unresponsive to her cues. After
noticing the infant was not sucking properly, a caseworker attempted
to bring an occupational therapist to the respondents' home, but
they refused the assistance, insisting the infant would be fine
until she could visit the pediatrician the next day. The infant was
removed from respondents' care that night. Caseworkers and
healthcare providers testified the infant may not have survived much
longer in respondents' care. Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28585.pdf



Issues: Termination of parental rights pursuant to §§ 19b(3)(b)(i),
(g), and (j); Best interest of the child; Ineffective assistance of
counsel

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Yount

e-Journal Number: 28586

Judge(s): Memorandum • Zahra, Gage, and Murray

The trial court did not clearly err in determining the statutory
grounds for termination of the respondent-father's parental rights
were established by clear and convincing evidence and in terminating
those rights. The evidence showed the child pointed to a picture of
respondent and stated his name. In her explicit statements of sexual
activity, she named respondent as the perpetrator. Her sexual acting-
out behavior demonstrated clear imitations of sexual intercourse and
other sexual activity inappropriate for her age. The actual
observable behavior and language were sufficient evidence of sexual
abuse by respondent. Further, when the child lived with respondent,
he took her to live with his girlfriend and her daughter, and while
living there, he engaged in acts of domestic violence against the
girlfriend resulting in his incarceration. There was also testimony
the child started screaming and would not go to respondent when she
saw him, which belied his claim there was a strong bond between
them. Affirmed.

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2005/083005/28586.pdf





Submitted by

Terry Bankert

http://enewsblog.com/terrybankert/

Lawyer Flint Michigan USA 1.810.235.1970