IN RE ANDREWS MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of A.M.A, T.E.A., K.M.L.A., and
E.E.A., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
September 27, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239436
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-012583
MICHELLE GOGINS,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
TIMOTHY EUGENE ANDREWS, SR.,
Respondent.
In the Matter of A.M.A, T.E.A., K.M.L.A., and
E.E.A., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 239437
Van Buren Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-012583
TIMOTHY EUGENE ANDREWS, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHELLE GOGINS,
Respondent.
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Sawyer and Kelly, JJ.
-1-
MEMORANDUM.
Respondents appeal as of right from an order terminating their parental rights to their
minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) and (j). This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E)(1)(b). 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). Contrary to respondents' assertions, the trial court did not consider
evidence of allegations of sexual abuse when rendering its ultimate decision to terminate their
parental rights. The evidence demonstrated that respondents were unable to provide proper care
or custody for the children because of their failure to comply with the parent-agency agreement
regarding substance abuse counseling. Respondents' failure to address their substance abuse
created a reasonable likelihood that the children would be harmed if released to their care.
Additionally, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents' parental rights was
clearly not in the children's best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although visitation went well, a significant amount of time
had passed since the children were made wards of the state. The children were entitled to
stability and permanency. Respondent father's remaining argument that the trial court abused its
discretion in considering confidential drug treatment reports was not preserved for appellate
review, and, in any event, is meritless.
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
