IN RE THOMAS/BYNUM MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JOHN WHITSET THOMAS, JR.,
CHARLES STEVEN THOMAS and LAUREN
ROSE BYNUM, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 10, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
SHAWN QUINETTE SAWYER a/k/a SHAWN
QUINATTE SAWYER,
No. 223136
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-351464
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOHN THOMAS and LORENZO BYNUM,
Respondents.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Saad and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by leave granted the family court order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j); MSA 27.3178
(598.19b)(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
When the minor child CST was born, he tested positive for “opiates, cocaine, cannabinoids and
benzodiazepines.” The hospital alerted FIA, and the minor children CST and JWT were made
temporary wards of the court. At the hearing, respondent admitted to using cocaine and marijuana
while pregnant, and to using her ADC funds to support her drug habit. Respondent entered into a
parent/agency agreement and agreed to complete drug treatment and to remain drug free. Thereafter,
LRB was born and, four days after her birth, respondent abandoned the child. Although respondent
-1
attempted to kick her drug habit, she relapsed after each of her six treatment programs. She also failed
to comply with other terms of the parent/agency agreement including visitation, employment, housing,
contact with her caseworker, and attendance at hearings. The trial court found clear and convincing
evidence supporting termination of respondent’s parental rights.
We review for clear error both the court’s decision that a ground for termination has been
proven by clear and convincing evidence and, where appropriate, the court’s decision regarding the
child’s best interest. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We find that 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; 593 NW2d 520 (1999); In re
Conley, 216 Mich App 41, 43-44; 549 NW2d 353 (1996). Moreover, the family court did not clearly
err in determining that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was in the children’s best
interest. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
