IN RE ELLINGTON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of OCEANSTAR TUESDAY
ELLINGTON
and
MATTHEW
LEWIS
ELLINGTON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
April 23, 1999
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
PATRICIA
ELAINE
ELLINGTON,
PATRICIA ELAINE ANDERSON,
a/k/a
No. 211899
Wayne Juvenile Court
LC No. 95-333387
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CLAUDE DAVID ELLINGTON,
Respondent.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Gribbs and Hoekstra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to
the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(b)(ii), (c)(i) and (g). We affirm.
Respondent-appellant’s sole claim on appeal is that the juvenile court acted prematurely in
terminating her parental rights because petitioner did not provide family counseling as part of the
services offered to help her address her failure to protect the children from abuse. This issue has not
been preserved for appeal because respondent-appellant has not cited any authority in support of her
claim that petitioner was required to provide this service, in addition to the others offered, as part of the
-1
treatment plan. Price v Long Realty, Inc, 199 Mich App 461, 467; 502 NW2d 337 (1993). In any
event, the juvenile code requires only that the Family Independence Agency (FIA) offer services that
will facilitate reunification and any additional services the court may order, MCL 712A.18f; MSA
27.3178(598.18f); MCL 712A.19; MSA 27.3178(598.19); the FIA is not required to offer every
conceivable service that may be available before termination may be ordered.
Further, the record indicates that respondent-appellant participated in individual counseling, yet
continued to deny that she either knew about the sexual abuse or could have protected the children from
it. Her denial lacks credibility in that despite the fact she sent the children to live with a relative because
she suspected her daughter had been abused. The father shared a bed with his daughter nightly in the
attic and this poor youngster had to endure such regular abuse without the protection of her mother, the
respondent. Also respondent admits she was aware of her son’s criminal activity with his father. In
view of this circumstance these circumstances, and the absence of any evidence to indicate that
respondent-appellant had since acknowledged her responsibility, there was no basis to conclude that
family counseling would have had any appreciable effect. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent
appellant has failed to establish any error in the juvenile court’s decision to terminate her parental rights
to the children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.