IN RE GARRETT/JOHNSON MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of EARL GARRETT, JR. And
CHIQUETTA JOHNSON, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 19, 2000
Petitioner -Appellee,
v
No. 212411
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 88-272652
PAMELA JOHNSON,
Respondent -Appellant.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Neff and O'Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent 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), (g) and (j); MSA 27.3178(598.19b) (3)(a)(ii); (c),
(g) and (j). The rights of the putative fathers were also terminated but are not at issue on appeal. We
affirm.
The minor children were made temporary wards of the court in May 1995, although respondent
has been involved with the system since 1988 regarding allegations of abuse and neglect of her three
other children. The three older children were subsequently placed with relatives, and only Earl and
Chiquetta are at issue here. Respondent acknowledged at the initial hearing in this matter that she had a
long history of drug use, that Earl tested positive for cocaine at birth and that he was accidentally
dropped down a flight of stairs and suffered a skull fracture. Earl had a bloody ear and Chiquetta had
sores on her head and her hair was matted when the children were taken into foster care.
Both
children needed medical attention and had not seen a doctor.
In approximately two years of foster care, respondent appeared for 47 of the 75 scheduled
visits with the children. At the time of the termination hearing, respondent had not obtained appropriate
housing or a legal source of income and, although she enrolled in four different substance abuse
programs, she did not successfully complete any of them. Respondent’s drug screens remained
-1
inconsistent throughout these proceedings. Respondent had periods of compliance with the conditions
of her parent/agency agreement, but was not able to sustain that compliance for any significant time.
Respondent had never provided a stable and secure life for the children and there was no indication that
she would be able to do so within a reasonable time frame. Contrary to counsel’s mischaracterization
of the record on appeal, the trial court never found respondent in “100% compliance” with the
parent/agency agreement.
The family court did not clearly err in finding that statutory grounds for termination were
established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593
NW2d 520 (1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, respondent
failed to show that termination of her parental rights was not in the best interest of the children. MCL
712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.10b)(5); In re Hall-Smith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564
NW2d 156 (1997). The family court did not err in terminating respondent’s parental rights.
We affirm.
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
