BY: Terry Bankert 1000 Beach St., Flint MI 48503, 810.235.1970

http://enewsblog.com/terrybankert/

Issues: Termination of both respondents' parental rights pursuant to
§§19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); Whether the trial court erred in not sua
sponte adjourning the final hearing to await the respondent-father's
recovery from a brain aneurysm; Best interests of the children

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Hammonds

e-Journal Number: 28699

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Smolenski, Murphy, and Davis

The trial court did not clearly err finding the statutory grounds
for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence
and in terminating both respondents-parents' parental rights to the
minor children. The trial court took jurisdiction over the children
on the grounds of neglect by the respondent-mother who had custody
during the parties' divorce. Protective Services received numerous
referrals regarding the mother. She admitted the material
allegations in the petition, including poor home conditions,
multiple safety risks, and allowing a registered sex offender to
live in the home. Respondents worked on the parent/agency agreements
requiring suitable housing and employment, parenting classes,
psychological evaluations, substance abuse assessments and
treatment, and visiting the children regularly. Respondents
partially complied with the requests. The trial court also did not
clearly err in terminating the respondent-father's parental rights.
His main barrier was alcohol abuse, but he refused to go to
treatment. He stopped attending supervised visitations. In September
2004, the father, while in a drunken state, went to the children's
residence and created a disturbance. The mother did obtain suitable
housing and the children were returned for a time, but she was not
paying rent and unrelated persons were living with her or watching
the children, including the sex offender. The mother disobeyed court
orders about visitation and who could have contact with the
children. Affirmed.

_____



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

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re LaBonte

e-Journal Number: 28698

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Smolenski, Murphy, and Davis

The trial court did not clearly err in terminating the respondent-
mother's (Peterson) parental rights under § 19b(3)(c)(i) because the
grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing
evidence. The evidence indicated she left her children with
respondent-Sexton, who had not established paternity, had no legal
rights to them, and failed to return. She also failed to attend to
Zachary's medical needs, frequently changed residences, made poor
housing choices, and did not have a suitable income. At the time of
the termination hearing, her living situation was still unstable,
she had no employment, and her income was minimal and insufficient
to support her children. The trial court also did not clearly err in
terminating the respondent-father's (Sexton) parental rights to
Zachary. Respondent was afforded opportunities to visit and care for
the child, but delegated his childcare responsibilities to others,
placed his own interests ahead of the child's, failed to visit the
child, and failed to provide financial support for either Zachary or
his other child with respondent-Peterson. The evidence supported an
inference Sexton would continue to associate with Peterson and allow
her to be involved with Zachary. The trial court did not clearly err
in finding there was no reasonable expectation Sexton would be able
to provide proper care and custody within a reasonable time
considering the child's age and medical needs, and there was a
reasonable likelihood Zachary would be harmed if returned to him.
Affirmed.

_____



Issues: Termination of parental rights; Standard of proof; Whether
the trial court erred in refusing to recuse itself on respondent's
motion to disqualify the trial judge; Whether the trial court erred
by improperly comparing the home of the child's father and his
companion with respondent's home

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Tullos

e-Journal Number: 28696

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Smolenski, Murphy, and Davis


The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental
rights to the minor child. The evidence established respondent
failed to provide the child with proper care or custody during the
16 months she parented him. During this period respondent permitted
a known sex offender to have contact with the child and exposed him
to illegal drug use. In addition, the child suffered from the
unstable environment provided by respondent and did not develop an
attachment to her. During the 20-month course of the lower court
proceedings, respondent was not able to house or transport herself,
but relied on others for provision of those basic physical needs.
Respondent failed to attend substance abuse counseling or
consistently submit drug screens until six weeks before the
termination hearing. The evidence also showed respondent lacked
maturity and engaged in risky behaviors. Further, her psychological
evaluation and her refusal to submit to drug screens and participate
in substance abuse treatment or counseling indicated a lack of
commitment to the needs of her children. In light of respondent's
lack of compliance and her demonstrated lack of responsibility and
commitment to reunification, the trial court properly concluded
there was no reasonable expectation she would become able to provide
the child with proper care or custody within a reasonable time.
Affirmed.

_____



Issues: Termination of parental rights; Whether portions of two
doctors' reports and testimony were based on hearsay and should not
have been admitted; Reactive attachment disorder (RAD)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Wiles

e-Journal Number: 28695

Judge(s): Per Curiam • Smolenski, Murphy, and Davis

The trial court properly terminated respondent-mother's parental
rights to the minor child. Respondent argued under MCL 712A.19b(3)
(j) the "harm" to the child if returned to her was suboptimal mental
health. Respondent was diagnosed with the arrested emotional
development of a young child and traits of histrionic and borderline
personality disorders, for which two to four years of therapy was
recommended before she could appropriately parent a child on her
own. The trial court noted termination was not warranted merely
because respondent might not be the best parent. However, RAD is an
extremely serious condition which, among other problems, impairs
sufferers' ability to relate to others and triples sufferers'
likelihood of being involved in the legal system by the age of 13.
Furthermore, treatment requires a consistent, supportive, nurturing
environment that would ordinarily be desirable for any child, but an
absolute necessity for a RAD sufferer. Given respondent's lack of
progress and continued need for her own therapy, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding she would be unable to provide the
environment the child required. Thus, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding a reasonable likelihood the child would be
harmed if he returned home. Affirmed.