IN RE BERRY MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of D.J.B. and S.A.K.B., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 26, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 237686
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-336593
JANICE BERRY,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
CURTIS SMITH,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the circuit court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g). This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). We affirm.
The circuit 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 Trejo, 462 Mich 341,
356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). The conditions that brought the children into petitioner’s care,
namely, respondent’s choice of male companions that put the child at risk of harm and inability
to secure suitable housing, continued to exist at the time of trial. Respondent continued her
relationship with the children’s abusive father for a time, then became engaged to a man who
was a convicted drug felon who alluded to the fact that he himself had at least one child in foster
care. Also, respondent brought her brother to a supervised visit of one of the children, even
though he had previously attempted to molest the child. Additionally, respondent lived in
fourteen different houses since this case began and her concept of “suitable housing” included
homes with no plumbing, missing windows, and extension cords running from her home to a
neighbor’s home for utilities. Respondent had been unable to graduate from supervised to
unsupervised visits. The evidence indicated that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the
-1-
conditions would be rectified or respondent would be able to provide proper care and custody
within a reasonable time.
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, supra at
356-357. One of the children had been in foster care her entire life and was doing well. For the
other child, visits with respondent were traumatic. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did not err
in terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
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.
