IN RE THOMAS/PATTERSON/BROWN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.C.T, R.P., and C.B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
October 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 236078
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-334795
PEARL DENISE BUTLER,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
HERMAN LEE THOMAS, DELION REDMOND,
and CHARLES BROWN, SR.,
Respondents.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
child R.P. pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i), (b)(ii), (g), (j), and (k)(iii).1 We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
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
1
The trial court did not terminate respondent’s parental rights to her children D.C.T. and C.B.
The trial court did not terminate the parental rights of respondents Herman Lee Thomas, Delion
Redmond, and Charles Brown, Sr., the fathers of D.C.T., R.P., and C.B., respectively. The
children were placed with their fathers.
-1-
712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, 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., 356-357.
We hold the trial court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner established by clear
and convincing evidence the existence of one or more statutory grounds for the termination of
respondent’s parental rights to R.P. Respondent admitted that she beat the child with a belt and
that she did not seek medical attention for the resulting injuries. Respondent also admitted that
she beat the child on previous occasions. The undisputed evidence showed that respondent had a
history of inflicting physical abuse on her children. At the time of the permanent custody
hearing respondent was unemployed, did not have a home of her own, and was a regular user of
marijuana.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights to R.P. was warranted on the grounds that respondent physically abused the child and
failed to prevent such abuse, MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(i) and (b)(ii), that respondent failed to
provide proper care or custody and could not be expected to do so within a reasonable time,
MCL 712A.19b(3)(g), that it was reasonably likely that the child would be harmed if returned to
respondent’s care, MCL 712A.19b(3)(j), and that respondent inflicted severe physical abuse on
the child, MCL 712A.19b(3)(k)(iii). The evidence did not show that termination of respondent’s
parental rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); Trejo, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/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.
