IN RE ELAINE RENEE BLUE MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
In re Elaine Renee Blue, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 23, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 219677
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-362864
APRIL ELAINE BLUE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EDGAR SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Zahra, JJ
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right from the order terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
The Family Independence Agency initiated proceedings to terminate respondent’s parental
rights to her daughter. The evidence produced at the permanent custody hearing showed that
respondent, who suffered from a long-term mental illness, lived in a supervised living facility at which her
daughter was not allowed to reside. Respondent’s prognosis was fair at best, and she would be
required to live under supervised conditions for the foreseeable future. The court found that clear and
convincing evidence existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j), for continuation of conditions of
adjudication, failure to provide proper care and custody, and risk of future harm.
-1
To terminate parental rights, the family court must find that at least one of the statutory grounds
for termination in MCL 712A.19b; MSA 27.3178(598.19b) has been met by clear and convincing
evidence. In re JS and SM, 231 Mich App 92, 97; 585 NW2d 326 (1998). If a statutory ground is
established, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds that to do so would not be in the
child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich
App 470, 472; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). We review the family court’s findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
The family court did not err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were established
by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent, who lost custody of her daughter when she was
hospitalized due to her long-standing mental illness, needed continuing treatment for her condition, and
was required to reside in a supervised living facility where the child was not allowed. The evidence
showed that while respondent had a source of legal income and made attempts to bond with the child
during supervised visitation, she would be unable to provide proper care for and custody of the child for
the foreseeable future. MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g),
and (j).
Finally, acknowledging the importance of the child-parent relationship, we nonetheless conclude
that the best interests of the child are served by termination of respondent mother’s parental rights. In
re Boursaw, 239 Mich App 161, 180; 607 NW2d 408 (1999), MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178
(598.19b)(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
