IN RE JONES MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of QDJ and DMJ, Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
V
No. 233561
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 92-297851
SHENNETT ETHEL JONES,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Murphy and Markey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right the trial court’s order terminating her parental
rights to the minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
The court’s factual findings were supported by the evidence and, thus, were not clearly
erroneous. In re Vasquez, 199 Mich App 44, 51; 501 NW2d 231 (1993); see, also, MCR
5.974(I); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Further, the trial court did not
clearly err in finding that at least one statutory ground was established by clear and convincing
evidence. In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 350, 352, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The evidence
in this case revealed that the children needed permanence and that although appellant did make
some progress during the proceedings in this matter, she failed to demonstrate sufficient progress
to show that she could provide a drug-free and stable environment for the children for any
lengthy amount of time. For example, appellant completed an inpatient drug program, but
relapsed afterwards and failed to attend aftercare treatment. Her lack of concern for the children
also was demonstrated by her lack of consistent visitation with the children while they were in
foster care. Further, because at least one ground for termination was established, the court was
required to terminate appellant’s parental rights unless the court found that that termination was
clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at 354, 364-
-1-
365. The trial court’s finding regarding the children’s best interests was not clearly erroneous.
Trejo, supra. The court did not err in terminating appellant’s parental rights to the children.
We affirm.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-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.
