IN RE MICHAEL AND CHRISTINE ARMSTRONG MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In the Matter of MICHAEL ARMSTRONG and
CHRISTINE ARMSTRONG, Minors.
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
January 31, 1997
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 191615
Saginaw Juvenile Court
LC Nos. 88-019696-NA
91-021390-NA
DONAHUE MAEHELE ARMSTRONG,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANTHONY ALLEN a/k/a ALAN ALLEN,
Respondent.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and McDonald and C. W. Johnson*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Donahue Maehele Armstrong (respondent) appeals as of right an order terminating
parental rights to her two minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii) (desertion) and MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g)
(failure to provide proper care and custody). We affirm.
The record reveals that respondent left her children in foster care and failed to prepare a child
care plan before expiration of the prearranged maximum voluntary placement period. In fact,
respondent never developed a care plan, rebuffed opportunities to visit her children, refused to
cooperate with case workers, and failed to attend scheduled meetings and court hearings. Instead,
respondent left the State of Michigan and failed to visit her children for almost a year. The record also
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
establishes that respondent failed to secure employment, her own residence, or any means of providing
for her two children. Respondent could not even propose a concrete plan for how she would gain
employment or support the children in the future.
After a thorough review, we conclude that the probate court did not clearly err in finding that the
statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller,
433 Mich 331; 445 NW2d 161 (1989); In re Jackson, 199 Mich App 22, 25; 501 NW2d 182
(1993). Further, given these circumstances, the probate court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that
the termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Jackson, supra at 25;
In re McIntyre, 192 Mich App 47; 480 NW2d 293 (1991); see In re Mayfield, 198 Mich App 226,
320, 235; 497 NW2d 578 (1993); In re Hall, 188 Mich App 217, 223-224; 469 NW2d 56 (1991).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Charles W. Johnson
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
