IN RE VILLENEUVE/FOLSTER MINORS

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In the Matter of A.V., C.V., and D.F., Minors. FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, UNPUBLISHED December 13, 2002 Petitioner-Appellee, v EDWARD FOLSTER and LAURIE FOLSTER, No. 240757 Alpena Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 99-005024-NA Respondents-Appellants. Before: Neff, P.J., and Hoekstra and O’Connell, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Respondents appeal as of right from the orders of the trial court terminating their parental rights to their minor children pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(b)(ii) and (c)(ii). We affirm. Respondents argue on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in terminating their parental rights to the minor children and finding that termination of their parental rights was in the children’s best interest. We disagree. We review for clear error both the trial court’s decision that the petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence a ground for termination and the trial court’s decision concerning the children’s best interests. MCR 5.974(I); In re Trejo Minors, 462 Mich 341, 356-357; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). Here, considerable evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the children had been subjected to repeated sexual abuse by a maternal uncle and a neighbor while in respondents’ care, that respondents had failed to protect the children from sexual abuse, and, because of respondents’ failure to even acknowledge at times that the abuse occurred, that the children would again suffer abuse if returned to respondents’ care. The record revealed ample evidence that respondents had not resolved their income and hygiene issues and did not benefit from the panoply of services offered to them. Numerous social workers, counselors, and educators tried to assist respondents and were met with a lack of cooperation, anger, and hostility. Further, the evidence did not show that termination of respondents’ parental rights was clearly not in the best interests of the children. MCL 712A.19b(5); In re Trejo Minors, supra. The trial court, therefore, did not err in terminating respondents’ parental rights to the children. -1- 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.