IN RE MONROE MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of B .M., D. A. M., JR., D. L. M., JR.,
and C. M. M., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 30, 2001
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231754
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-368868
DEON MONROE,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JEANETTE ANN MORGAN,
Respondent.
In the Matter of B. M., D. A. M., JR., D. L. M., JR.
and C. M. M., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 231853
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 98-368868
JEANETTE ANN MORGAN,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
DEON MONROE,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
In these consolidated appeals, respondents-appellants appeal as of right from the trial
court order terminating their parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i),
(g) and (j). We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds for termination
were established by clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331,
337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further the evidence did not show that termination of respondentsappellants’ parental rights was clearly not in the children’s bests interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In
re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondents-appellants’ parental rights to their children.
Respondent mother also suggests that termination was improper because the FIA failed to
offer her services to deal with the problems associated with parenting children with special
needs. The FIA must either provide services to a parent facing termination of her parental rights
or justify its decision not to provide services. In re Terry, 240 Mich App 14, 25, n 4; 610 NW2d
563 (2000). However, MCL 712A.18f does not require the FIA to provide every conceivable
service to work toward reunification. Parents need only be offered reasonable services. MCL
712A.18f(4). The FIA did provide respondent-mother reasonable services. Unfortunately,
respondent failed to benefit from the services offered.
We also reject respondent mother’s claim that the trial court terminated her parental
rights because her children had special needs. This is simply unsupported by the record. The
trial court did not terminate parental rights because of the children’s needs, but rather, because
respondent did not demonstrate that she was capable of properly caring for these children and
addressing their special needs.
Finally, respondent mother argues that the trial court should have considered alternatives
to terminating the parental rights to all four children. Specifically, respondent suggests that the
court could have terminated parental rights to only Derrick and Curtis. However, it is clear from
the record that respondent mother was not capable of properly parenting even two children with
special needs. She simply lacked the cognitive capacity to deal with children with disabilities.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-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.
