IN RE EDWARD DESHOUN GROSE JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EDWARD DESHOUN GROSE, JR.,
Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
June 23, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
JULIE KAREN DUNSKY,
No. 222568
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-371781
Respondent-Appellant,
and
EDWARD GROSE,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-mother appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii), (c)(i), and (g). We affirm.
After reviewing the record, we believe that the family court did not clearly err in finding that the
statutory grounds for termination were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974; In
re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). The record clearly establishes that
respondent-mother failed to attempt to contact this now five year old child for months, even years, at a
time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(a)(ii); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(a)(ii). The record also establishes that
respondent-mother failed to take any steps toward remedying the circumstances that justified the
assumption of jurisdiction by the trial court, or that there is any reasonable expectation that the
conditions will be remedied within a reasonable time.
MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i). Indeed, a parent-agency agreement was never presented to respondent
mother because she could not be located. We also see no evidence that respondent-mother will be
able to provide proper care and custody for the child within a reasonable time. MCL 712A.19b(3)(g);
MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g). Finally, we conclude that the evidence established that termination was
clearly in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Boursaw,
239 Mich App 161, 180; 607 NW2d 408 (2000). Thus, we conclude that the family court did not err
in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child. In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470,
473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997).
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.
