IN RE MATINA & MAURICE NEWSON/JOHNESHA & JOHN CURRY II MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MATINA NEWSON, MAURICE
NEWSON, JR., JOHNESHA LEEANN CURRY,
and JOHN CAESER CURRY II, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 225517
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-025454-NA
MAZENA BELL, a/k/a MAZENA NEWSON,
Respondent -Appellant,
and
MAURICE NEWSON,
Respondent,
and
JOHN CURRY,
Respondent.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Hood and Gage, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We
affirm.
-1
Review of the record reveals that respondent has a history of criminal behavior for retail fraud
as well as a history of selecting abusive relationships. Respondent exposed her children to her poor
lifestyle choices by including them in the shoplifting crimes by having them wear merchandise. She also
suffered abuse at the hands of her live-in boyfriend while the children were in the home. The children
were given psychological examinations, and it was concluded that they suffered from the trauma of
being exposed to respondent’s poor choices. The children were removed from the home shortly after
respondent’s live-in boyfriend was severely beaten at respondent’s behest by her ex-husband. She was
suspected of attempted homicide and was jailed for a few months then released. While released,
respondent failed to take advantage of every opportunity to attend recommended counseling and
parenting classes. Respondent was then sentenced to prison for violation of probation. Her earliest
release date is October 1, 2001.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket
No. 112528, issued 7/5/2000), slip op. p 17. There was no evidence that respondent could provide
proper care and custody within a reasonable period of time considering the age of the children.
Termination was required unless the court found that termination was clearly not in the children’s best
interests. Id. at 27. On this record, we cannot conclude that the termination was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental
rights to the children. Id.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
