IN RE KOVU THOMPSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Y.B., K.T., and A.E.J., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 30, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237664
Genesee Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 1995-102699-NA
MICHAEL THOMPSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
ANDRE EDWARDS,
Respondent.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), (i), and (j).1 We affirm.
We review a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights for clear error. MCR
5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520 (1999). If the trial court determines
that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of one or more
statutory grounds for termination, the court must terminate parental rights unless it finds from
evidence on the whole record that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich 341, 353-354; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). We review the trial
court’s decision regarding the child’s best interests for clear error. Id. at 356-357.
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of respondent Andre Edwards, the
father of A.E.J. Petitioner did not seek termination of the parental rights of the fathers of Y.B.
and K.T.
-1-
We hold that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established one or
more statutory grounds for termination of respondent’s parental rights. Contrary to respondent’s
assertion, the trial court did not terminate her parental rights because she lapsed into drug use on
one occasion. The evidence showed that respondent had longstanding addictions to crack
cocaine and alcohol, and that she was unable to successfully address those addictions. Her
parental rights to five other children were terminated in previous proceedings due to her inability
to overcome her addictions. Respondent has not established the trial court’s findings that she
could not properly care for the children and that they faced a substantial risk of harm if returned
to her care were clearly erroneous. Sours, supra.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was warranted on the grounds that she failed to provide proper care or custody for the
children and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), that
respondent’s parental rights to other children were terminated and that previous attempts to
rehabilitate respondent were unsuccessful, MCL 712A.19b(3)(i), and that it was reasonably
likely that the children would be harmed if returned to respondent’s care, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j).
The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s parental rights was clearly not in the
children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I).
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
