IN RE CHRISTOPHER DUDEK JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of C.D., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 27, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238381
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-000259-NA
MELANIE DUDEK,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals by application for delayed appeal granted from an order terminating
her parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (3)(g). We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Respondent’s sole claim on appeal is that, contrary to the family court’s conclusion, it
was clearly in the best interests of the child not to terminate respondent’s parental rights. When
it is established that there exists at least one statutory basis for termination of parental rights, the
court must order termination unless it finds from evidence on the record that termination is not in
the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612
NW2d 407 (2000). This Court reviews the best interests decision for clear error. Id. A finding
is clearly erroneous if the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich App 111, 117; 624 NW2d 472 (2000).
On review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that the family court’s assessment of
the child’s best interests was clearly erroneous. The primary concern throughout the proceedings
was respondent’s substance abuse problem. The evidence that respondent had done well in
residential treatment during the fourteen days before the final termination hearing and that she
and the child shared a strong bond did not outweigh her failure to overcome her ongoing pattern
of relapsing into further cocaine use during the two years this case was pending. At an earlier
hearing, respondent was clearly informed that her parental rights would be terminated if she used
-1-
cocaine again, and she agreed to abide by that condition as part of her Adrianson1 agreement.
She nevertheless used cocaine again later the same month. Respondent was given many
opportunities to conquer her addiction without success. The record shows that while she may
care deeply for her child, he needs a stable home and she has not demonstrated that she can
provide one. As the Trejo Court observed, “[t]he court did not clearly err by refusing to further
delay permanency for the child[], given the uncertain potential for success and extended duration
of respondent’s reunification plan.” 462 Mich at 364.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
1
In re Adrianson, 105 Mich App 300; 306 NW2d 487 (1981).
-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.
