IN RE BROWN MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of B.B., M.B., J.B., and D.B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238887
St. Clair Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 00-000176
WENDY BROWN,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her
children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), (c)(i) and (ii), (g), and (j).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
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., 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. The children were removed from respondent’s custody because the
family was residing in inadequate housing, and because the children were exposed to criminal
activities. Respondent changed employment and living quarters frequently, and often chose
1
The trial court’s order also terminated the parental rights of non-participating respondents
Anthony Byrd, the putative father of B.B., M.B., and D.B., and Brian Gains, the putative father
of J.B. Byrd and Gains have not appealed the order.
-1-
residences that were inadequate for the children. Two of the children reported being sexually
molested by respondent’s brother and other men. The foster care worker in charge of the case
testified that respondent blamed the abuse on others, and refused to take any responsibility for its
occurrence. Respondent continued to associate with her brother after being advised that she
should not do so. Respondent attended parenting classes, but was unable to demonstrate skills
learned in those classes. Her visits with the children were often chaotic. Respondent did not
otherwise substantially comply with the parent-agency agreement. Failure to substantially
comply with a parent-agency agreement is evidence that return of the child to the parent could
cause a substantial risk of harm to the child. MCR 5.973(C)(4)(b).
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination of respondent’s parental
rights was warranted on the grounds that two of the children suffered sexual abuse that
respondent did not prevent and that would likely reoccur, MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (iii), that
the conditions that led to adjudication continued to exist, had not been rectified, and were not
likely to be rectified within a reasonable time, MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (ii), that respondent
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), and that there was a reasonable likelihood 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. MCL 712A.19b(5).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.