IN RE REED/BENDOLPH/WASHINGTON MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of TRELL DONTAY REED, MYRIA LYNN MINNIE REED, CAROL LECETA REED, NATASHA COTTLETA REED, DONJA EPIPPHANY BENDOLPH, and MALIKA SHANTEL WASHINGTON, Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED January 28, 2000 Petitioner-Appellee, v No. 218711 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 97-353731 CHERYL DARLENE REED, Respondent-Appellant, and RICK SCREEN, DERRICK SNIPES, RONALD BRADLEY, LARRY WASHINGTON, and WILLIAM BENDOLPH, Respondents. Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Meter and T. G. Hicks*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ Respondent-appellant’s sole claim on appeal is that petitioner failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children. See In re Springer, 172 Mich App 466, 474-475; 432 NW2d 342 (1988). We disagree. The record indicates that the main focus of this case was respondent-appellant’s ongoing substance abuse problem. Referrals were made to at least three different treatment programs, but respondent continued to relapse and use cocaine. While petitioner could assist respondent­ appellant in obtaining treatment for her substance abuse problem, which it did, the ultimate success of that treatment was up to respondent-appellant. The record does not indicate that petitioner failed to provide sufficient help to assist respondent-appellant in attempting to reunite her with her children. Accordingly, we reject respondent-appellant’s argument that the family court erred in terminating her parental rights to the children. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Affirmed. /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Patrick M. Meter /s/ Timothy G. Hicks -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.