IN RE ROBERT AARON-MICHAEL NEWSON MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of R.A-M.N, Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
December 6, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 241381
Saginaw Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-025617-NA
SOPHIA NEWSON,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JAMES ROBERT BOOTHE,
Respondent.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Hoekstra and O’Connell, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right from the trial court order terminating her
parental rights to the minor child under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i) and (g).1 We affirm.
The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the statutory grounds were established by
clear and convincing evidence. MCR 5.974(I); In re Sours, 459 Mich 624, 633; 593 NW2d 520
(1999); In re Miller, 433 Mich 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161 (1989). Although respondent-appellant
had resolved some of the conditions leading to adjudication, the evidence established that she
continued to use cocaine. Respondent-appellant tested positive for cocaine within three months
of the termination hearing, and only participated in one drug screen after the positive test. With
respect to § 19b(3)(g), the evidence showed that respondent-appellant failed to provide proper
care and custody for her child by continuing to use drugs and by her history of unstable housing.
1
Since this action was filed, this statute has been amended on grounds not relevant to this
appeal. See 1998 PA 479; 1998 PA 530; 2000 PA 46; 2000 PA 232.
-1-
Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondent-appellant’s parental
rights was clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo, 462 Mich
341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Although there was evidence that respondent-appellant
loved the child and the child was bonded to her, she continued to use drugs and the evidence
established that the child needed permanence. Thus, the trial court did not err in terminating
respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the child.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
