IN RE TURNER MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DCT, BRT and DTT, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 26, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
COLITA MARIE TURNER,
No. 225822
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 97-349930
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JOSEPH MANDEL BROOKS and
LAMONT RAY,
Respondents.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Whitbeck and J. L. Martlew*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the family court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g); MSA
27.3178(598.19b)(3)(c)(i) and (g). We affirm. We decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The family court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence.1 Termination was proper under subsection
(c)(i) because the conditions leading to the adjudication, i.e., respondent-appellant’s failure to
1
MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
feed, clothe, house, and care for her children properly, continued to exist more than 182 days
later. There was no evidence that she had made significant changes in her life that would allow
her to meet her children’s needs within a reasonable time considering their ages. For instance,
although she obtained housing, respondent-appellant’s home was unsuitable for children. She
also failed to show that she had improved her parenting skills even though she had attended some
parenting classes. There was no substantial compliance with the case service plan, even though
she used some services. These factors also supported termination under subsection (g) because
they are relevant to respondent-appellant’s inability to provide proper care and custody of her
children, especially because the children have special needs. Further the evidence did not show
that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental rights was clearly not in the minor children’s
best interests.2 Thus, the family court did not err in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental
right to the minor children.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jeffrey L. Martlew
2
MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357;
612 NW2d 407 (2000).
-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.
